Point of Law: Merely on asking the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed as there has to be sufficient reasons behind it.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri L.D. Rajbhar, who appears for the opposite party no.1.

2. This is a revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (P.C.Act) Court No.2/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Special Case No. 3 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.154 of 2016 under Section 8/9 Prevention of Corruption Act (State Vs Chand Patrakar and another), P.S. Hasanpur, District Amroha by which the court below has rejected the application preferred by the revisionist under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Briefly stated facts are that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionists, who are two in numbers, on 10.4.2016 before the P.S. Hasanpur, District Amroha being Case Crime No.154 of 2016 with an allegation that against the opposite party no.2 and their relatives, a case relating to dowry was lodged and which was under investigation by C.O. Hasanpur and about 7 to 8 days prior to the lodging of the present FIR one Latif (Milkman) had recommended the name of the revisionist and a meeting also arranged with them wherein the issue with regard to the expunging the name of the opposite party no.2 and her daughters was discussed in lieu of payment of certain amounts. A demand of Rs.1,00,000/-was raised by the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 thereafter pledged her jewellery and paid an amount of Rs.30,000/-to the revisionist and an amount of Rs.70,000/-was balance which was to be paid subsequently. However, the proceedings went against the opposite party no.2 and her family despite the fact according to the opposite party no.2, she had made the payment for expunging away her name from the criminal proceedings as nothing was done by the revisionist, so above noted FIR was lodged.

4. The investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist on 5.5.2016 in Case Crime No.154 of 2016, 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reference whereof has been given in para-4 of the application.

5. It appears that the statement of the PW1 Atarkali (opposite party no.2) was recorded on 19.4.2018 itself and thereafter the statements of PW2 to PW7 have also been recorded. The revisionists as per own showing have annexed annexure-3 at page 40 of the paper book an application purported to be under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling and re-examine of PW1 (O.P. No.2) The said application has now been rejected while passing the order dated 13.10.2021 which is under challenge.

6. Before the proceeding further it is apt to quote the provisions contained in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C:

“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.”

7. A plain reading of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. itself shows that any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under said Code, summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, recall and reexamine any person already examined and the court shall summon, examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.

8. The legislature was quiet conscious about the employment of the word “at any stage of any inquiry”, “trial or other proceedings under this Code” as well as “if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

9. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the incarnation of the provisions contained under Section 540 un