ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The revision application challenges the correctness of the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Sessions Court which was moved under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.PC’) for recalling PW1 – Shivrajbhai Ruvjibhai Chaudhary, PW2 – Umang (Eye witness), PW3 – Naresh Vasava, PW16 – JK Khambla, PW17 – PJ Pandya. The applicant was accused no.5 of the Sessions Case No.5 of 2025 and No.6 of 2025. The trial was under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 189, 332, 353, 386, 294B, 506(2), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda along with learned Advocate Mr. Arjun Joshi submitted that the prosecution witness nos.1, 2, 3, 16 and 17 had been examined and cross-examined and after the completion of the cross-examination, the prosecution subsequently produced and exhibited several additional documents including the statements under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, bank record letters, CDR of the witnesses and the accused, customer application form (CAM) and another official correspondence. Advocate Mr. Bharda stated that those documents were brought on record at later stage of the trial after substantial cross-examination had been concluded. Thereby, altering the evidentiary basis of the prosecution case, causing prejudice to the defence.

2.1 Advocate Mr. Bharda submitted that it is mandatory provision under Section 311, where if the Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence are essential for the just decision of the case, then the Court have the power to summon the witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined. Mr. Bharda stated that Section 311 of the Cr.PC can be invoked by either of the side, may be the prosecution or the defence, at the same time, suo-motu the Court can exercise the discretionary power. Rejection of the application has caused great prejudice since the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on those grounds has been curtailed.

3. Per contra, Public Prosector Mr. Hardik Dave very vehemently stated that the grounds raised are contrary to the record. In fact, the record suggests that all the documents were handed over to the defence and referring to the deposition of PW1 – Shivrajbhai Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave drew the attention of this Court to the endorsement recorded prior to para 19. Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave submitted that an application was moved at Exh.43 and which came to be allowed and the witnesses were recalled and at that time, the defence was provided with the application which was decided on the submission of both the sides.

3.1 Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave thus stated that the defence lawyer was given the opportunity to resist the application Exh.43 and it was on merits that the application was decided and the complainant as witness was recalled. Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave submitted that it is fallacious to now submit that no documents were provided to them prior to the cross-examination and submitted that the application moved before the Sessions Court was only with an intention to protract the trial and derail the proceedings.

4. The facts of the case succinctly can be noted that forest officials were taking action for the removal of the illegal cultivation carried out by certain accused persons on government/forest land. The lawful action provoked accused no.5, the present applicant, to summon the forest officials to his residence subjected them to verbal abuse, threatened discharge of firearm and physically assaulted the forest officer by slapping him. The present accused in collusion with the other accused had coerced and extorted a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the forest officials compelling them to hand over to the illegal cultivators.

5. PW1 Shivrajbhai Chaudhary as a complainant was examined at Exh.32. The SBI statements were exhibited during the course of his evidence at Exh.35. The chief examination of the complainan