JUDGMENT :

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 29.04.2022 by virtue of which the application of the applicant under section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning certain witnesses was rejected.

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr Vijendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. L.M. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. In short, facts giving rise to present case are that an FIR vide Case Crime No. 1052 of 1996, under Section 364 IPC was lodged on 19.10.1996 by the informant against the applicant and three others alleging therein that on 18.10.1996 at about 7 p.m. elder brother of the informant along with one Sanjay Rai were going Girdharganj to buy vegetables; at that time applicant and other named accused persons came in a jeep and took away brother of the informant with them and when the informant reached to his house from his village, Sanjay Rai is said to have narrated all these facts to the informant. The informant further apprehends that his brother has been abducted with intention to kill him because of old enmity with one co-accused Prajapati Shukla @ Jhanney Shukla, named in the FIR.

4. Investigation is said to have been carried out but about one month none of the prosecution witnesses were examined and even the statement of informant was not recorded and as such the investigation was transferred to CBCID, Gorakhpur on 31.12.1996 by parcha no. 3 and during course of process of investigation, the matter was again transferred to CBCID, Allahabad. During pendency of investigation, Investigating Officer, CBCID, Gorakhpur submitted charge sheet against Madhusudan Shukla (applicant) and Devi Sharan Yadav in the matter on 9.9.1997 under Sections 302, 364, 201/34 IPC and against accused Prajapati Shukla @ Jhannu Shukla and Girija Shanker Pandey on 4.11.1997 under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 IPC, whereupon cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. However, later on, the second Investigating Officer H. N. Kanojiya, Inspector CBCID, Allahabad is said to have submitted final report against the applicant and other co accused persons. But the Trial Court has proceeded merely on the basis of the previous charge sheets, without taking any notice of the final report submitted by second Investigating Officer.

5. During course of trial, after recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an application (163 kha) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 25.4.2022 was filed on behalf of the accused applicant to produce one Sanjay Rai as well as Second Investigating Officer H. N. Kanjiya, Inspector CBCID, Allahabad either as defence witness or court witness for the just and proper decision of the trial, which has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 29.04.2022 noticing the fact that this Court, considering it to be one of the oldest matter, on earlier occasion had already directed the trial court to conclude the trial of the matter within six months. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that examination of the witnesses named in the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is very essential for the just decision of the case. It is further submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, which is based on last seen testimony and the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgements of Rajaram Prasa Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2013 14 SCC 461; The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. N. Seenivsagan, reported in AIR 2021 SC 2441.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State pleading the legality and validity of the impugned order contended that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant at the fag