JUDGMENT :

1. This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter in short referred as 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by Anand Prakash Singh, applicant, with a prayer for setting aside impugned, dated 15.2.2019, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.7, Varanasi, in Case No.1571 of 2013, State vs. Anand Prakash Singh, of Police Station-Adampura, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.7, Varanasi, whereby, Application, filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., by the applicant, with a prayer for reexamining PW-1, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that an application, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., was moved before the Trial court, with a prayer for giving an opportunity to learned counsel for defence for questioning PW-1 over photographs, which could not be filed on record by the erstwhile counsel, under his wrong advise, and after engagement of present counsel, it was thought that above witness be cross-examined over those photographs. Witness, Varsha Singh, is there in those photographs and this Application was rejected by Trial court, which was an abuse of process of law. Hence, this Application, with above prayer, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.

4. From very perusal of the Application, moved, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., before Trial court, it is apparent that on the date, i.e., 5.2.2018, some photographs were said to have been filed through list before the court, concerned, and prosecution witness no.1 could not be cross-examined over those photographs because of non-filing of the same before Trial court by the erstwhile counsel owning to his unknown reasons, whereas, those photographs were of this depiction that witness, PW-1, was present therein and it will belie entire case of prosecution. Hence, in the interest of justice, witness be summoned.

5. It was objected by other side with this contention that those photographs were result of tricky photography and it was neither with any certificate, certifying same to be original one nor any negative of the same nor were placed on record prior to above date of filing of the application, rather, those tricky photographs were got fabricated, only with a view to linger the proceeding.

6. Learned Trial court, after hearing learned counsel for both sides, rejected the application, while passing impugned order.

7. Admittedly, it was never said that those photographs could not be placed on record, even after, best exercise, made by the applicant, i.e., those documents were not filed till above date of Application, hence, no question arises for any cross-examination over those photographs and once it were opposed to be a tricky photographs and manufactured by the applicant, with a view to lingering proceeding, then, very genesis and admissibility of above photographs were challenged and unless those photographs were admitted on record, after satisfying ingredients by proving by applicant, by evidence of the person, who prepared those photographs and these ingredients were not part of record, and as such they are not admitted and no question of taking those photographs on record arises.

8. Moreso, Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides, as under:

"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.-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 person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

Thus, end of justice is a sine qua non for entertaining an application, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. This Section is an enab