Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

Informant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the order dated 19.11.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rurdraprayag in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2015 under Section 120-B, 302 & 201 IPC, whereby application moved by the informant under Section 311 of the Code to summon Tota Lal and Jaipal Lal for examination as prosecution witnesses was rejected.

2. Undisputedly, Tota Lal S/o Jhhagadu Lal and Jaipal Lal S/o Chhavi Lal are not cited as witness in the charge-sheet; in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is nowhere stated that they have witnessed the incident of murder.

3. In a criminal trial, ordinarily, for the offence against the society, learned prosecutor is the only authorised person to conduct the trial at the best of his ability. Complainant, if so permitted, can only assist the prosecutor. Ordinarily, complainant has no right to intervene during the trial.

4. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads 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.”

5. The bare perusal of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would make it clear that Section 311 is in two parts. First part of Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure vests discretionary powers in the Court to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness at any stage of any inquiry. While second part of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory in nature, which gives ample power to the Court to summon and examine or recall or re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

6. To invoke later part of Section 311 of the Code, the sine-quo-non is that the Court must form its opinion that person, sought to be summoned for examination although not cited as witness, is essential for fair and just trial of the Case.

7. In the case, in hand, it has come on record that during the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, none of the witness sought to be summoned and have stated that they have witnessed the incident, therefore, it cannot be said that their statement shall be just and proper for fair adjudication of the trial.

8. In the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.