1 2025:CGHC:54572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3377 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Vijay Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years R/o Kotba, Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10/11/2025 1. This CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS challenging the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District- Jashpur in Criminal Case No. 2 15/2018 whereby the application under Section 391 read with Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society Jashpur has lodged report on 07.04.2015 at Police Chowki Kotba regarding misappropriation of 13430 quintal paddy by the President Jay Singh, Dy. President Ashok Sharma, Hem Lal Banjara, Branch Manager of Tribal Service Society Kotba, the present petitioner being Assistant Manager and Aman 3. Kumar Sharma Assistant Fad Prabhari of Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Kotba, without enquiry police registered offence under Section 409/34, on 07.04.2015 and registered offence under Section 409/34 against the 05 accused persons and charge sheet has been filed before JMFC, Pathalgaon. That the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses but has not examined the documents which is required under the law. That the important seizure regarding the paddy sale receipts were seized but was not given to accused as a part of challan. That the accused has filed an application under Section 391 read with 311 for re-examination of the Vijay Shankar and Data Operator Saleem Tiga. Copy of application under Section 391 read with 311 of Cr.P.C. are filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2. The necessary documents regarding the paddy purchase register and the weight receipts were seized but the copy of the documents were not given to the accused in charge sheet. That with the malafide intention the necessary documents were not made available to the petitioner. A 3 copy of charge sheet is filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3. There has been misappropriation regarding the purchase paddy in the purchase register which can been evidently proved by the documents i.e. purchase register and weight slip. There has been various circumstances which makes it evident that computer operator with the malafide intention has misappropriation the paddy purchase registered and weight slip and has shown more purchase of paddy then the original. That it has created great loss to the applicant by not providing the material documents such as purchase register and weight slip. The application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by accused was dismissed and he was not given the opportunity to cross examine the material witnesses on the new subsequent facts before the Court for examine the documents filed by the complainant as well as applicant. That on 11.11.2019 the learned lower court below rejected the application of petitioner without appreciating the case on merit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application under Section 391/311 of Cr.P.C. as it is any court may, at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or re-call 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. 4 5. Learned State counsel opposes the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order passed by the learned trial court is true and correct and needs no interference and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of record shows that 8. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner herein had filed an application to summon PW-1 and PW-5 for cross-examination. The learned trial court rejected the aforesaid application stating that the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner herein has already cross-examined the witnesses in detail. Thus, the appellant/petitioner herein has been availed of the the appropriate adequate opportunity of defense by cross-examining the witnesses. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned trial court and hence the present petition is not maintainable. 9. In view of the above, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima