ORDER

With the consent, heard finally.

1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”) has been preferred by the petitioner/accused against the order dated 12.4.2023, passed by the Special Judge, Vyapam, Indore in S. T. No.437/2016, whereby learned Trial Court has allowed the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/prosecution.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that S. T. No.437/2016, offence under sections 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC alongwith section 3/4 of the M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 is pending before the trial Court, against the petitioner and other co-accused person. After completion of prosecution as well as defence evidence, the case was posted for final argument. On 11.3.2023, final arguments were advanced and completed by the counsel for the petitioner. On 17.3.2023 and 24.3.2023, the case was posted for remaining final arguments for the co-accused, Purushottam Khoiya. Meanwhile, on 24.3.2023, the respondent/prosecution had filed an application u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court has passed the impugned order and allowed the aforesaid application and has ordered to recall the witnesses namely, Anil Sharma, Handwriting Expert Senior Scientist (document) CFSL New Delhi; and Rakesh Bisht, Senior Scientific Officer Photo and Scientific, CFSL New Delhi to prove “report on comparison of photographs” (Annexure-P/3) and “handwriting expert report” (Annexure-P/4).

3. Criticizing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Trial Court has committed grave error of law and facts as the same is against the settled principle of law. Learned Trial Court has failed in not considering the material facts of the case. Annexure-P/3 and P/4 were well within the knowledge of the prosecution but no sufficient reason is given as to why the application u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. was not filed previously. Furthermore, learned trial Court had closed the prosecution evidence twice alongwith arguing finally twice already. The delay remains unexplained in the application u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. as well. Such practices should not be allowed to fill the lacunae. Reliance has been placed by the counsel in the case of Mannan S.K. and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. [AIR 2014 SC 2950].

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

6. It is apposite to reproduce here section 311 of Cr.P.C, which 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 reexamine 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. In the case of Mannan S.K. and Ors. (supra), the apex Court has held in paragraph-10 as under :--

“10. The aim of every Court is to discover truth. section 311 of the Code is one of many such provisions of the Code which strengthen the arms of a Court in its effort to ferret out the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. It is couched in very wide terms. It empowers the Court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as witness or recall and re-examine already examined witness. The second part of the section uses the word ‘shall’. It says that the Court shall 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. The words ‘essential to the just decision of the case’ are the key words. The