JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P.-NIA. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 28-09-2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, N.I.A., Ranchi in Special N.I.A. Case No. 03 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, posted at Simaria P.S. to the effect that on 10.01.2016 a secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali Magadh Coal area in Tandwa some local people have formed an association which is related to the banned extremist outfit TPC. The members of such association were extracting levy from coal traders and DO holders by creating fear in the name of the extremists of TPC, namely Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohram Ji, Akraman Ji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ghanju. It was also alleged that if any businessmen hesitates to pay levy, they are threatened by members of such organization and are also subjected to hardships. In order to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of such information a raiding party was constituted on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Chatra. A raid was conducted in the house of the President of the association Binod Kumar Ganjhu and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be submitted by Binod Kumar Ganjhu with respect to the recovery of such a huge amount of cash. From the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu two persons were also apprehended who disclosed their names as Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu and on search of their persons a loaded Mauser pistol was recovered from the possession of Birbal Ganjhu while from the possession of Munesh Ganjhu a country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. Both had confessed of being associated with TPC organization. Binod Ganjhu had disclosed that he is the President of “Magadh Sanchalan Samittee” and the levy collected is sent to Gopal Singh Bhogta @ Brijesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed between Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischyaji, Bhikan Ganjhu and Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. Both had confessed of being associated with TPC organization. Binod Ganjhu had disclosed that he is the President of “Magadh Sanchalan Samittee” and the levy collected is sent to Gopal Singh Bhogta @ Brijesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed between Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischyaji, Bhikan Ganjhu and Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He had further disclosed that Bindu Ganjhu is a member of “Amrapali Sanchalan Samittee” who collects levy on behalf of TPC and since he is at present in Jail the collection of levy is being done by Pradeep Ram. On such information a raid was conducted in the house of Pradeep Ram and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 57,57,710/- in cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be given by Pradeep Ram with respect to the cash recovered. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C., Section 25(1- b)(a), 26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1)(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act against Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram, Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischya Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan, Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu and Bhikan Ganjhu. On 10.03.2016 charge sheet was submitted against the other accused persons before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. On 09.04.2017 on the prayer made by the Investigating Officer offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein after referred to as the UAP Act for the sake of brevity) were added. Since the offences involved a scheduled offence, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 6(3) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency, Act, 2008, the Central Government vide order dated 13.02.2018 had directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the case consequent to which Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was reregistered as NIA Case No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI. The first supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 32/2018 was filed by the NIA on 21.12.2018. 5. The first supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 32/2018 was filed by the NIA on 21.12.2018. 5. In course of trial, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 04-09-2024 praying for recall of witness Govind Kishore Khandelwal- P.W.-53 for cross- examination on the ground that the statement of the said witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not provided by the prosecution on the date of examination in chief. The said application was, however, rejected vide the impugned order dated 28-09-2024 by the learned Special Judge. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that admittedly the petitioners are accused in the first supplementary charge sheet and the statement of Govind Kishore Khandelwal recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was after the submission of the first supplementary charge sheet and forms part of the documents of the second supplementary charge sheet as D-181. The petitioners have not been supplied with the second supplementary charge sheet, much less the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Govind Kishore Khandelwal. Mr. Sinha has submitted that though in the supplementary counter affidavit filed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02-05-2025, it has been stated that the petitioners were supplied with the first and second supplementary charge sheet along with supporting documents but on perusal of Annexure- A series appended to the supplementary counter affidavit, it transpires that nothing substantive has been mentioned therein, except a bald statement to the effect that the parties have received the documents. No particulars of the document though has been mentioned. The NIA in their affidavit, have taken an incoherent stance as in the first counter affidavit, it has been stated that Govind Kishore Khandelwal has not been mentioned in the list of witnesses of the first supplementary charge sheet, but has been included in the second supplementary charge sheet whereas in the supplementary counter affidavit, the fact of Govind Kishore Khandelwal being not named as a witness in the first supplementary charge sheet has been contradicted. Mr. Sinha has submitted that the right to cross-examination is an integral part of a fair trial and it is necessary for the petitioners to cross-examine Govind Kishore Khandelwal for the purposes of eliciting contradictions. The Learned Trial Court has lost sight of the basic tenets of Section 311 Cr.P.C. while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners. 7. Mr. Mr. Sinha has submitted that the right to cross-examination is an integral part of a fair trial and it is necessary for the petitioners to cross-examine Govind Kishore Khandelwal for the purposes of eliciting contradictions. The Learned Trial Court has lost sight of the basic tenets of Section 311 Cr.P.C. while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners. 7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA in opposition has submitted that the NIA had filed the first supplementary charge sheet on 21-12-2018 against 16 accused persons and investigation was kept pending against unknown accused and in course of investigation, it came to light the name of several accused persons who were facilitating and providing funds to the T.P.C. after negotiation between the T.P.C. operatives and D.O. Holders/Transporters. The name of the petitioners surfaced during investigation regarding their active role in the entire transactions. The copy of the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Govind Kishore Khandelwal was already supplied to the petitioners. It has been submitted that Govind Kishore Khandelwal was examined by the prosecution as P.W.53, but since no one turned up for his cross-examination despite several opportunities, P.W.53 was discharged without being cross-examined. The prosecution evidence has been closed and the case is running for recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The filing of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is a dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioners to delay the disposal of the case. It has been submitted by Mr. Das that there has already been an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLA (Crl.) No. 7609/2022 directing the trial court to conclude the trial by examining the witnesses on a day-to-day basis and the petitioners, in order to circumvent such direction, have resorted to filing applications which does not merit any consideration. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the various affidavits filed by them. 9. Initially, a case was registered at Tandwa P.S. being Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/16 in which after investigation, Police had submitted charge sheet. Subsequently, on the direction of the Central Government, the NIA had taken over investigation after re-registering Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 as RC- 06/2018/NIA/DLI. The first supplementary charge sheet was submitted by the NIA against the petitioners and others vide charge sheet No. 32 dated 21-12-2018. Subsequently, on the direction of the Central Government, the NIA had taken over investigation after re-registering Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 as RC- 06/2018/NIA/DLI. The first supplementary charge sheet was submitted by the NIA against the petitioners and others vide charge sheet No. 32 dated 21-12-2018. In the first supplementary charge sheet, Govind Kishore Khandelwal was cited as P.W.-55 and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded subsequent to the filing of the first supplementary charge sheet on 19-06-2019 and 19-08-2019. The second supplementary charge sheet was submitted by the NIA on 10-01- 2020 and the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Govind Kishore Khandelwal has been listed as D-181 in the said charge sheet. It appears that on 24-02-2023, the prosecution had filed the attendance of the witness Govind Kishore Khandelwal and on the same day, permission was granted by the learned Trial Court to examine him as a prosecution witness. On 24-02-2023 itself, an application was filed before the learned trial court on behalf of the petitioners in which an objection was raised about the attempts being made by the prosecution to get the statement of Govind Kishore Khandelwal recorded on 19-08-2019 exhibited, though the said document is not part of the first supplementary charge sheet. Such objection was considered by the learned trial court and vide order dated 24-02-2023 had rejected the same and the prosecution was permitted to examine Govind Kishore Khandelwal as a prosecution witness. In the said order, mention has been made that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. during further investigation have already been supplied to the accused persons facing trial. This finding seems to be opaque and is based on the submission made on behalf of the NIA. In fact, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02-05-2025, the NIA has filed a supplementary counter affidavit wherein, though a mention has been made of the supply of first and second supplementary charge sheets along with the supporting documents to the petitioners, the receipt of the documents as brought on record in the supplementary counter affidavit does not mention about the specification of the document supplied. What has been brought on record by the NIA in the supplementary counter affidavit are the receipts of the police papers in a format which reads as follows: Receipt of Police Paper NIA Case No.- RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI As per the direction of the Hon. SPL NIA Court, Ranchi, I ……………… Received the following Documents of police paper in the case No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI. Name-………………….. Add.- …………………... Date- ………………….. 10. The aforesaid format has been signed by all the parties acknowledging receipt of the Police Papers. However, though it has been stated by the NIA that all the documents and second supplementary charge sheet were supplied to the parties, but the receipts do not show the particulars of the documents. If the acknowledgements were merely of receipts of Police Papers, a presumption could be drawn that all the Police Papers have been supplied but as would be evident from the receipt, though mention has been made of “following documents”, but there is no list or description of the documents which were supplied. Admittedly, the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Govind Kishore Khandelwal was recorded after the first supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners. The circumstances pointed out above thus lead us to drawing an adverse inference about non-supply of the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Govind Kishore Khandelwal which has caused prejudice to the parties. 11. Mr. Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of Govind Kishore Khandelwal who has been examined as P.W.-53 and the refusal/absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners to cross-examine the said witness. According to Mr. Das, the refusal to cross-examine Govind Kishore Khandelwal and the delay in filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. that too when the prosecution evidence has been closed are only aimed to prolong the trial which would run contrary to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis. 12. Section 311 Cr.P.C. has a wide amplitude and can be invoked at any stage of the trial and the primary object in allowing such application is, if the Court comes to a conclusion that the evidence of any such person will be necessary to examine to arrive at a just decision in the case. In this context, we may refer to the case of Sarla Gupta & Anr. In this context, we may refer to the case of Sarla Gupta & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement in ( 2025) 7 SCC 626 in which it has been held as follows: “ 59. When at the stage of defence of the accused, documents are produced on the prayer of the accused and the accused desires to cross-examine any of the prosecution witnesses based on the said documents, it is always open for the accused to apply under Section 311 CrPC (Section 348 BNSS) to recall a prosecution witness already examined for further cross-examination. The reason is that the right to effectively cross-examine the prosecution witnesses is also a part of the right to have a fair trial. The accused can exercise this right even if evidence of both sides is closed.” 13. As we have come to a conclusion that there is no tangible material to suggest that the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Govind Kishore Khandelwal which has been shown in the second supplementary charge sheet as D-181 was supplied to the petitioners and since it would be in the interest of justice permitting the petitioners to cross-examine the said witness and since the reasonings given by the learned trial court is bereft of proper foundation, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 28-09-2020 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, N.I.A., Ranchi in Special NIA Case No. 03/2018 and direct the NIA to supply a copy of the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Govind Kishore Khandelwal to the petitioners by 07-11-2025 and thereafter, the prosecution will produce the said witness on 14-11-2025 on which date, the petitioners will cross-examine the said witness. No adjournment in any circumstance shall be given to the petitioners. The learned trial court shall ensure that the cross-examination of P.W.53 shall be completed preferably on the same day and if it spills over then positively by the next day. 14. This application accordingly stands disposed of. 15. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.