1 2025:CGHC:54819 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3135 of 2025 • Pramod Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late S.B. Shrivastava Aged About 47 Years Patwari, Patwari Halka No.17, R/o House No.18/b Sector- 2 Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Eow/acb, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sanjeev Panday, Dy. AG. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition against the impugned order dated 02/09/2025 (Annexure A-1), whereby the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Durg, District: Durg has partly allowed the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. 2. Relevant facts of this case are that respondent herein has registered crime No.29/2021 for the offence punishable under section 7 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against the 2 present petitioner along with co-accused Lekhuram Nishad. Charge sheet to the effect of the crime has been filed before the Court concerned on 11/10/2022. On 15/12/2022, charges have been framed against the accused persons and after trial program, the trial has been fixed for recording of the evidence on 27/02/2023 to 04/03/2023. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner has moved an application before the trial Court for calling of voice recorder and C.D. with all necessary equipment related to case and also recalling of prosecution witnesses for recording of his evidence with respect to the above said voice recorder and CD. The respondent State has filed reply against the said application. Learned trial court after taking into consideration the application and reply, has passed the impugned order on 02/09/2025 and partly allowed the application whereby prayer for recalling of PW-12 and PW-7 for recording of evidence has been rejected, however, recalling of witness PW-6/Anil Kumar Baghel for recording of evidence has been allowed. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that trial court has committed grave error while dismissing the application filed under Section 348 of BNSS without application of mind and without considering all the expect of the case. Trial court has committed grave error while dismissing the application on superficial manner whereas the trial court ought to have been decided the application on merit. Trial court has committed grave error while dismissing the application without looking to the reason and the effect of non- 3 recalling of witnesses for fair and impartial adjudication of the case. Trial Court has committed grave error while dismissing the application by not exercising its discretionary jurisdiction properly and adequately. Trial court has committed grave error while dismissing the application by not passing the reasoned order as at the time of recording of evidence of PW-12, no voice recorder or C.D. has been duly presented before the Court nor it has been duly proved. The petitioner and his Counsel appearing before the Court after receiving the C.D. came to know that the transcription of all voice contained in C.D. have not been done by the prosecution witnesses and there is difference in C.D. and transcription, therefore, for proper adjudication of the case, PW-12 & PW-7 should be recalled for recording of his evidence. Hence, petition be allowed and the impugned order be set-aside. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission/prayer of counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the order of trial Court placed on record. 6. Trial Court has vide power under Section 311 CrPC to examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case at any time. Section 311 of Cr.PC reads as under :- “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. -- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any 4 person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 7. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that at the time of recording of evidence of PW-12 voice recorder or C.D. has not been duly presented before the Court nor it has been duly proved, there is difference in C.D. and transcription, further considering that petitioner wants to re-examine the PW-12 in order to bring on record correct facts and circumstances and also just and proper disposal of the trial, further considering Section 311 CrPC, I am inclined to allow the present petition in part. 8. Accordingly, impugned order (Annexure A-1) rejecting application of petitioner for re-calling witnesses namely PW-7/Prem Prakash Sahu & PW-12/Sheel Aditya Singh, is hereby set aside. Trial court is directed to recall the witnesses (PW-7/Prem Prakash Sahu & PW- 12/Sheel Aditya Singh) for their further examination on the point of script of CD and recorded voice. 9. In the result, instant petition is allowed in part. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-