ORDER

02.11.2021 By way of this application filed under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.11.2019, passed by the learned CJM, Sivasagar, in GR Case No. 654/2011, whereby PW-7 has been summoned afresh for re-examination at the stage of arguments.

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1.

The petitioner is facing trial in connection with the aforesaid case and after closure of the evidence, the case was proceeded for submission of further arguments, at this stage on the basis of an application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 CrPC to re-examine the bank officials to prove the bank statement of the accused that certain amount was credited in his account by the informant, the Court allowed the same and consequently, the bank official was examined as PW-7. On a subsequent date, the Court passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2019, whereby the Court held that although the Branch Manager was examined, but he has not produced the necessary certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, while giving his evidence, so the said PW-7 was recalled by the Court itself to adjudicate the matter in hand. The said order has now been challenged by the accused petitioner that the said order has been passed only to fill up lacuna in prosecution case and to delay the proceeding.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the said certificate is necessary and unless the same is proved, the statement of account cannot be taken into account, without proving the authenticity.

In regard to the materials on record, it is to be noted that the concerned bank officer is already examined by the Court at the behest of the prosecution side, but the impugned order has now been passed by the Court itself, opining that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was supposed to have been produced by PW-7, is not produced, so he is required to produce the certificate. The scopes and ambit of Section 311 CrPC is wide enough, which can be exercised by a Court at any stage for just decision of the case, which now appears to have been exercised by the learned trial Court. The said witness has already been examined, but the certificate under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act was not produced, which is necessary to support the transaction that has been indicated in the statement of account in question. I find no irregularity or illegality in the aforesaid order to interfere into.

Resultantly, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to expedite the hearing of the matter and after examining PW-7 on the said limited point and shall dispose of the case, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant