The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious exercise of the power to summon or recall witnesses under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to ensure the discovery of truth and the just decision of the case.

ORDER

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

1. Heard Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan Moharana, learned counsel for the State Vigilance.

2. The petitioner, invoking under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has assailed the order dated 23.02.2021 passed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. in the proceeding under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the learned C.J.M., Sonepur in G.R. Case No.21 of 2010 rejecting the application of the petitioner to recall the P.W.1, namely, Prabir Kumar Tripathy.

3. The brief facts of the case giving rise for filing of the instant application is that on 18.09.2018, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. before the learned C.J.M., Sonepur to recall the P.W.-1 for his further crossexamination on the ground the witness Prabir Kumar Tripathy (P.W.1) informant of the case is not only a public servant but also resident of neighbouring village of the accused and previously posted at Dungripali Police Station. He knows the accused before the entangling him in this case for the reason best known to him. There are sufficient materials with the defense to satisfy the Court that the witness has adopted suppresio very and suggestion falsi in prosecuting the accused in this case. The contention of the petitioner is that while the P.W.1 claims his presence in the alleged premises with the

4. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur in the relevant date, but has suppressed the fact in the F.I.R. as well as in his evidence as because he has foisted the case with an ulterior motive to send the petitioner behind the bar. In support his contention, the accused-petitioner has filed the certified copy of alleged F.I.R. on Tax Evasion Case No.48/2011-12, the seizure list, statement recorded by the STO Vigilance before the lower court. The petitioner filed the said petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to recall the witness, namely, Prabir Kumar Tripathy (P.W.1) for his further cross-examination on 18.09.2018.

5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on confrontation of the aforesaid facts, it is highly essential for further cross-examination of P.W.1 at this stage. A petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. confers enormous power on the learned court below to summon a witness or re-examine any person who had already been examined until the judgment of the case is delivered. The plenary power which the provision under Section 311, Cr.P.C. vested in the court is to discover truth.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was pending since 18.09.2018 before the learned C.J.M., Sonepur and lastly vide order dated 23.02.2021, the learned C.J.M. rejected the aforesaid petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. in the proceeding under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in G.R. Case No.21 of 2010.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged impugned order passed by the learned C.J.M., Sonepur on the ground that the learned court below has rejected the petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. on the ground of delay. Being oblivious of the fact that the petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was pending for more than two years for consideration and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one valid date may be fixed by the learned court below without any delay.

8. Before adverting to the rival contention, it would be apposite to refer under Section 311, Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:-

'311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present- Any Court may, at any stage or 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 person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just d