1 2025:CGHC:40730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2523 of 2025 1 - Rahul Bharadwaj S/o Setram Bhardwaj, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Reda Thana Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station City Kotwali Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13/08/ 2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, against the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Sarangarh, (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 74/2024, whereby the application under Section 348 of BNSS (311 of Cr.P.C.) filed by the petitioner seeking re- calling of the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 Ghasiyaram Pankaj and Pw-2 Mother of the prosecutrix) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.14 17:30:26 +0530 2 appointed counsel, Mr. Ashish Mishra, did not adequately cross-examine PW-1 (Ghasiyaram Pankaj) and PW-2 (the mother of the deceased). Consequently, the petitioner decided to engage a new counsel Mr. G.K. Upadhyay to represent him before the trial court. Upon reviewing the case records, the new counsel discovered that crucial aspects remained unexplored during the examination of PW-1 and PW-2. Given the importance of thorough examination of these witnesses for a just decision, an application under Section 311 of the CrPC was filed to re-examine them. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 17.06.2025. He submits that learned trial Court has completely ignored the provisions of section 311 of CrPC and rejected the application for recalling the witnesses though it vested with a wide power to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage and closing of prosecution evidence is not bar. 3. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that strong and valid reasons ought to have been assigned by the petitioner for recalling the witnesses and in absence thereof, the power under Section 311 CRPC should not have been invoked to entertain the application, therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the order rejecting the application u/s 311 CrPC, which needs no interference. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order impugned. 3 5. Upon reviewing the available material and the order impugned, it is clear that on 29.01.2025 and 24.02.2025, PW- 1(Ghasiyaram Pankaj) and PW-2 (mother of the prosecutrix) were cross-examined in detail by the learned Advocate of the accused, Mr. Ashish Mishra. The trial Court considered the fact that the statements of important witnesses in the case have been recorded, and the case is fixed for the remaining prosecution evidence. In such a situation, the newly appointed advocate of the accused cannot be allowed to make up for the deficiency. Hence, rejected the application. 6. In Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI, (2019) 14 SCC 328, the Supreme Court held that the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. should be invoked by the Court only to meet the ends of justice. It is to be exercised for strong and valid reasons and with great caution and circumspection. It cannot be exercised at the mere whims and fancies of the accused. Para 11 is relevant and quoted hereinbelow : "11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has wide power under this section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. In the instant case, though this Court possesses inherent 4 powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (similar to Section 482 of the CrPC) to meet the ends of justice, but in absence of valid reasons shown by the accused/applicant in his application seeking recall/re-examination of witnesses, it is not automatically open to invoking Section 311 of the CrPC (or its equivalent in BNSS, Section 348) for re-examining witnesses. It would not be appropriate to exercise the inherent power merely on the basis of change of the lawyer. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.