O R D E R

23.03.2022 By way of this petition under Section 397/401, read with Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 14.03.2022, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chirang at Bijni in Sessions Case No.16B/2021 whereby learned court has allowed the Petition No.260, filed by the learned Addl. P.P. under Section 311 of CrPC to examine two witnesses.

I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners who has basically challenged the impugned order that at the conclusion of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has come up with a petition under Section 311 CrPC to examine two more witnesses and such examination of further witnesses at the fag end will cause prejudice to the petitioners’ side who are facing trial in the said case.

I have also gone through the impugned order so passed by the learned trial court. The same is quoted hereinbelow:-

“14/03/2022 The accused, Shri Khandakar Safiur Rahman and Smti Lal Bhanu are produced from judicial custody.

The co-accused, Shri Ayub Ali is present.

I have heard both the parties upon petition no:260 filed by the Ld.

Addl. PP under Section 3111 CrPC praying to allow the prosecution to examine two witnesses namely, Shri Mazor M.L Singh and Shri Gautam Dutta, who are the two Nodal Officers of two Telecom Companies namely, Reliance Jio and Bharati Airtel respectively.

The Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that the prosecution had relied upon the call detail reports (CDR) of the mobile phones used by the accused persons prior to and during the commission of the alleged offence, to establish the complicity of the accused persons in the commission of the alleged offence; as well as to establish their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that witness, Shri Mazor M.L Singh is the Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio; and similarly the witness, Shri Gautam Dutta is the Nodal Officer of Bharati Airtel and both the above-named two persons had provided the CDRs and had also issued the certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872; as such their examination is material to prove the CDRs and if they are not examined then vital evidence could not be brought on record. The Ld. Addl. PP has further submitted that the defence had challenged the CDRs during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer of this case as such their examination is vital and essential for finding out the truth.

The Ld. Counsel for the Defence had submitted that the prosecution wants to fill the lacuna in its case by examining the above two witnesses and that their examination is not necessary for a just decision of the case;

as such to reject the prayer of the prosecution.

Upon hearing and on perusal of records, it appears that the prosecution had relied upon many circumstantial evidence to prove its case and one of the circumstantial evidence is the mobile telephonic conversations between the accused persons during and prior to the commission of the alleged offence and the location of their mobile phones and in order to prove the same, the prosecution has relied upon CDRs of their mobile phones and it also appears from the record that the above named two witnesses had issued the said CDRs as they are the Nodal Officers of the respective telecom companies and they had also issued the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

It also appears from the record that the defence had challenged the CDRs and the Certificate under section 65B during the course of cross- examination of the Investigating Officer of this case; as such in my considered opinion the examination of the above-named two witnesses are necessary and expedient for just decision of this case.

Moreover, in my considered opinion no prejudice would be caused to the defence because the prosecution had all along relied upon the CDRs and in fact the copies of the said CDRs and the copy of the certificate under section 65B were also furnishe