Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers wide discretion on the court to summon any person as a witness or order the production of any document at any stage of the trial, if it is essential to the just decision of the case.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Ray, C.J. - This revision involves interpretation of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the scope, ambit and power of the Court thereunder to summon any person as a witness at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. This point arises in the following circumstances.

2. During the night of 26-10-1976 a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant Petitioner in village Ghusuria. The dacoit severely assaulted the Petitioner causing a number of injuries on his person and decamped with cash of Rs. 5,000/- and gold and silver ornaments. On 27.10.1976 at about 7 p.m. the Petitioner lodged a within report with the A.S.I., Rajkanika Out Post on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and investigation was commenced. Ultimately opposite parties 1 to 8 along with one Karnadev Naik and two others, out of whom one is dead, were put on trial for the offence u/s 395, Indian Penal Code in S.T. No. 1/1 of 1979 in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kendrapara. As Kamadev Naik and another absconded, the case was split up and the opposite parties 1 to 8 are being tried as aforesaid. During investigation on the application of opposite party No. 1 his confusional statement was recorded on 20-11-1976.

3. About a month or so prior to the date of occurrence, i.e. 26.10.1979, the opposite parties 1, 7 and 8 and others committed dacoity in the district of Dhenkanal which gave rise to Parjang P.S. Case Nos. 27 and 35 of 1976. During the course of investigation of these cases the Circle Inspector of Kamakhyanagar seized a letter written by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 8 on 19-10-1976 in which it is mentioned that preparations were being made for committing dacoity in village Chusuria which in fact took place on 26.10.1976 in the house of the Petitioner. The said letter is in the handwriting of opposite party No. 1. That letter had been filed in S.T. No. 11 of 1978 and proved in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal which arose out of said Parjang P.S. Case Nos. 27 and 35 of 1976. That Sessions Trial having ended in acquittal, the State has preferred an appeal to the High Court which is pending as Government Appeal No. 6 of 1979.

4. In the present sessions trial the Circle Inspector of Kamakhyanagar was examined as P.W. 21 on 10.8.1979 and he deposed that the said letter seized by him had been exhibited in Dhenkanal Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1978 and that Government Appeal No. 6 of 1979 arising therefrom was pending in High Court. On the basis of this evidence the Public Prosecutor filed a petition to call for the said letter from the High Court. This petition was rejected by the Assistant Sessions Judge by his order dated 10.8.1979 on the sole ground that it was filed at the close of the prosecution case. He, thereafter, posted the case to 13.8.1979 for accused statement and after two dates posted to 11-9-1979 for defence.

5. On 11-9-1979 after the defence was declined prosecution filed a certified copy of the said letter with a petition to call for the original from the High Court. This petition was heard on 12.9.1979 after objection had been filed to the same. By order dated 13.9-1979 the Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the petition on the ground of delay as also on the ground that the authorship of the document cannot be established. This order is impugned in this revision.

6. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the ambit and scope of Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds to Section 540 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 311 runs as follows:

Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such p