ORDER

Shrivastava, J.--1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 4.9.2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, (PC Act), Bhind in Case No. 02/2018 SST, whereby the application filed under section 311 of CrPC preferred by the petitioner has been partly rejected.

2. The facts of the present case pertain to demand of bribe by the petitioner from complainant Deshraj Singh Tomar for issuing character certificate, in regard to which Special Sessions Trial No. 02/2018 is pending before First Additional Sessions Court and Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), District Bhind.

3. During the course of trial, at the time of examination of accused under section 313 of CrPC, an application under section 311, CrPC, was filed by the petitioner for calling/recalling three defence witnesses, namely, Omprakash Pandey (DW1), Hemant Sharma (DW2) and O. P. Chaturvedi (DW3). The trial Court partly allowed the application and directed for calling Hemant Sharma (DW2) and O.P.Chaturvedi (DW3) for their examination, but declined to recall Omprakash Pandey (DW1) holding that the said witness Omprakash Pandey has already been examined as prosecution witness before the trial Court.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the document sought to be summoned is necessary for just decision of the case. For ensuring the fairest opportunity of fair trial it is necessary to call/summon the original evidence and in absence of originals the copies cannot be relied and trusted. The prosecution has destroyed the original evidence, i.e., the original conversation recorded in voice recorder with malicious intention.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that Omprakash Pandey had already been examined as PW1 before the trial Court on 23.5.2018 but at that time the petitioner was not possessing documents which are subsequently received by him under RTI Act and Omprakash Pandey is necessarily required to be recalled as defence witness because he is the Public Information Officer of District Jail, Bhind, who can verify the documents received under RTI Act. It has been further submitted that the entire story of the prosecution is concocted and based upon the tissues of lie, therefore, it is highly necessary and important to recall Omprakash Pandey for verification of the documents received by the petitioner under RTI Act from the office of Omprakash Pandey, who is not only the Deputy Jail Superintendent but also the Public Information Officer of District Jail, Bhind. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments in Natasha Singh v. CBI (State) (arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 3271/2013) and, Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and anr (AIR 1991 SC 1346]. Hence, prayed to allow the instant petition under section 482 of CrPC.

6. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions and prayed for rejection of the petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. section 311 of CrPC runs 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."

9. In the present case, the petitioner is an accused before the trial Court who is facing trial under section 07, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is apparent from the record that during trial, statements of 12 prosecution witnesses have been recorded and prosecution evidence is closed. At the time of examination of accused