Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010243482025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1371/2025 MD LOKMAN ALI SON OF SAMSUL HOQUE R/O VILL- BALIGAON, P.S. DALGAON, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MR A AKBAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Lokman Ali impugning the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai whereby it has Page No.# 2/4 rejected the prayer for recalling the prosecution witnesses for further cross- examination under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 28.04.2022, one Pinku Sarma, S.I. of Police of Dalgaon Police Station had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Dalgaon Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of secret information regarding carrying of suspected narcotic drugs by one of the passengers of an e-rickshaw, a naka checking was organized and during naka checking, the police stopped the suspected e-rickshaw and during search of the said e-rickshaw, 5 kgs. of suspected ganja was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. Upon receipt of this said FIR, Dalgaon P.S. Case No. 140/2022 was registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act 1985 and investigation was initiated. 4. Ultimately, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner under the aforesaid provision of the law. The petitioner faced the trial and charges were framed against him under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution side examined six prosecution witnesses out of eight, on different dates, i.e., 07.07.2022, 21.07.2022, and 04.08.2022. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier engaged counsel of the petitioner had abandoned the case, and thereafter, the newly engaged counsel after going through the records found that the earlier engaged counsel failed to put some vital questions to the prosecution witnesses, therefore, on 27.06.2025, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for recalling of the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination. However, the Trial Court by passing the impugned order dismissed the said application and rejected the prayer of the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that further cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is material for just decision of the case and, therefore, the Trial Court erred in rejecting the prayer. It is submitted that by rejecting the said prayer, the Trial Court failed to exercise its power to summon witnesses under Section 311 of Cr.P.C judiciously. It is submitted that the earlier engaged counsel for the petitioner failed to put many vital questions to the witnesses, which would prejudice the petitioner during his trial because of no fault of him. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in “(2011) 8 SCC 136”. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that it is a ploy by the petitioner to fill up the lacuna of the defence after discharge of the prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 to 6, who were already examined and cross- examined at length. He submits that the witnesses sought to be re-summoned for re-cross-examination were thoroughly cross-examined and discharged in the year 2022, whereas the application for re-summoning them was made belatedly in the year 2025 that in itself is a sufficient ground for rejecting the prayer. He further submitted that the Trial Court had correctly rejected the prayer as no just ground has been shown for re-summoning all the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination that too belatedly. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Page No.# 4/4 9. It is well settled legal proposition that the powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be exercised where the Court is of the considered opinion that such re-examination is found to be essential for a just decision of the case. To arrive at such a finding, some materials have to be placed before the Trial Court as to why the re-cross-examination is necessary. By merely pleading that certain essential questions were not asked without giving an indication regarding those questions would not enable the Trial Court to consider as to whether the re-cross-examination is essential or not. Moreover, in this case, the delay in filing the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is also not explained properly. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order justifying any interference in the same in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. 10. The criminal petition is, accordingly, dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant