ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. N. Behuria, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned counsel for the Republic of India (CBI).

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court challenging the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned C.J.M. (CBI), Bhubaneswar in SPE Case No.03 of 2004, wherein the learned Court has rejected the petition filed by the Petitioner under section 311, Cr.P.C., praying to recall P.Ws.8 and 19 for further cross-examination.

3. The background facts of the case are that, the Petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Sections120-B/420/471, I.P.C. pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged vide Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.164 of 1999. While the matter was in seisin before the Court and witnesses were examined, despite several opportunities given to the Petitioner, he did not avail the same to cross-examine the witnesses.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been cooperating with the Court during the trial and as many as 22 witnesses have been examined so far. However, two witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.8 and 19, whom the Petitioner seeks to recall and cross-examine, are necessary for the interest of justice and just decision of the case.

5. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the CBI vehemently objected to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner primarily on the ground that the application has been moved just to protract the trial when the trial is already at its fag end and the witnesses, who have been sought to be examined, are official witnesses who have simply exhibited the documents and the matter primarily relates to documentary evidence. And as such, he submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly declined to recall the witnesses for cross-examination.

6. The object underlying in Section 311, Cr.P.C. is that, there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. These are reported in the matters of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 3 SCC 374; Jagat Rai vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178 and Iddar & Ors. vs. Aabbida & Anr. 2007 (11) SCC 211.

7. In the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 3 SCC 374, it is held that:

“The object underlying in Section 311, Cr.P.C. is that, there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The Section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the Section merely because the evidence supports the case for the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In section 311 the significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code.” It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the Court on summoning witnesses, the direction conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power, the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind.”

In the case of Jagat Rai vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178, it is held as follows –

“The object of the section 311 is to bring on record evidence not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of the orderly society. If a