The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. allow a Court to summon a witness if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The judgment also emphasizes that the need for expeditious trial in heinous offences is in the interests of justice.

JUDGMENT

G.S. ahluwalia, J. - This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by additional Sessions Judge (POCSO act), Mehagaon, District Bhind in Special Sessions Trial No.28/2021 by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is facing trial. On 7.8.2021, the prosecutrix was present but the case was adjourned on account of the fact that the Presiding Officer was on leave and the prosecutrix was bound over for 12.8.2021. On 12. 8.2021, the prosecutrix appeared before the Trial Court and her examination-in-chief was recorded. at that time the counsel for the applicant moved an application for deferment of cross-examination on the ground that health condition of his senior advocate is not good, therefore, he is not in a position to cross-examine the prosecutrix. The prayer made by the counsel for the applicant was allowed and the cross-examination of the prosecutrix was deferred subject to payment of cost of Rs.250/- with a clear stipulation that on the next date of hearing, the counsel for the applicant would positively cross-examine the prosecutrix. accordingly, the case was fixed for 1.9.2021 and the prosecutrix was also bound over for the said date. On 1.9.2021, the prosecutrix appeared. The cost of adjournment was also paid and the prosecutrix was cross-examined by Shri Devesh Shukla, counsel for the applicant. It appears that after cross-examining the prosecutrix, Shri Devesh Shukla, counsel for the applicant moved another application for deferring the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. The copy of the said application has not been placed on record. Thereafter, on 23.11.2021, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was also filed by Shri Radheyshyam Saini on the ground that today he has been engaged and since the health condition of the son of his senior advocate is not good, therefore, he is not available. accordingly, he prayed for time to argue the matter. The case was adjourned to 24.11.2021. On 24.11.2021, the arguments were heard on the question of recalling under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and the said application was rejected. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that certain important questions were left in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, therefore, if one opportunity is granted, then the applicant would be able to effectively cross-examine the prosecutrix.

3. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that every attempt was being made by the defence counsel to get the cross-examination of the prosecutrix deferred. On the first occasion, the cross-examination of the prosecutrix was got deferred on the ground that the health condition of the senior Counsel is not good and the adjournment was granted on payment of cost of Rs.250/- with a clear stipulation that on the next date of hearing, the counsel for the applicant would positively cross-examine the prosecutrix.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 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.'

6. Thus it is clear that any Court may, at any stage of trial or proceeding can summon any witness if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. In the present case, the prosecutrix appeared on 12.8.2021 and her examination-in-chief was recorded but on an application filed by the counsel for the applicant, her cross-examina