1 2025:CGHC:59456 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3719 of 2025 Bishu Mandal S/o Late Khudiram Mandal Aged About 32 Years R/o Banglapara, In Front Of Mahila Iti, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) 2 - Shri Pulin Mandal S/o Late Shri Sheetal Mandal Aged About 55 Years R/o Dnk Colony, Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties heard finally at motion stage. 4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 17.09.2025 2 passed by CJM Narayanpur C.G. in Criminal Case No. 283/2021 by which the right of the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the witness namely Rahul Mandal is closed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 2 namely Pulin Mandal filed a written complaint before the police station Narayanpur, C.G. on 13.08.2021 alleging that the present petitioner has entered into an agreement with the son of the complainant namely Rahul Mandal for selling land of Ranu Adhikari situated at Ashram Road, DNK Colony, Khasra no. 612/2 rakba 0.5670 hectare at the rate of 10 dismil for 1 lakh 55 thousand rupees. For the said purchae of land the complainant through his account and his wife’s account has provided Rs. 4.5 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh in cash. FIR was registered on 13.08.2021 and chargesheet was filed for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. On 22.03.2023 the trial Court after hearing parties on charge framed charges against the petitioner and also framed the memo of charge on the very day and fixed the case for prosecution evidence on 28.04.2023, thereafter the prosecution has produced 3 witnesses till 17.09.2025. On 18.02.2025 the prosecution has examined Rahul Mandal as PW-3 who is the son of the complainant and with whom the alleged agreement for the sale of land took place and on that day the prosecution has started the cross-examination, however, during the examination-in-chief, it appears to the prosecution that original agreement of sale of land has been sent to the examination and to 3 mark as Exhibit the prosecution has sought time which is evident from the deposition of the said witness, however, in the order sheet, it has been reflected that the petitioner has sought time as his counsel is not able to appear and thereafter the matter was adjourned, however the said witness has again appeared for examination on 17.09.2025 and on that date petitioner/accused has again sought time that his counsel has stuck up in the way and unable to appear to cross-examine the witness, but the trial court has not provided the opportunity and closed the right of the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the said witness. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that right to cross- examine the witness is foundation of fair trial and the reason which has been assigned is bonafide as the counsel from Kondagaon have to come to Narayanpur and in between there is forest area and Naxal region and on 17.09.2025 due to heavy rain the road was blocked and for these reasons, the counsel was stuck up in the way and unable to appear to cross-examine the witness but the trial court closed the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 311 of CRPC praying to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witness. The State counsel did not objected to the said application but the learned trial court rejected the application vide order dated 15.10.2025. 7. Learned State counsel opposes the contention raised by the counsel for the applicant. 4 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Perusal of record shows that on 18.02.2025 the examination-in- chief of Rahul Mandal was conducted and on the same day, the counsel for the accused prayed for time to cross-examine the witness Rahul Mandal because of his engagement before the District Court in Kondagaon. The prayer was allowed the trial court granted time to the counsel for the accused. On 17.09.2025 the case was fixed for the cross-examination of prosecution witness Rahul Mandal. The accused orally submitted that his counsel has been stuck in his way to the Court and prayed to fix the case for cross-examination of the Rahul Mandal tomorrow. The learned trial court rejected the prayer and closed the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness Rahul Mandal. 10. On 15.10.2025 the counsel for the accused filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and stated therein that on 17.09.2025 the case was fixed for cross-examination of Rahul Mandal but on the same date the counsel for the accused could not appear as he was on his way from Kondagaon to Narayanpur and in between due to heavy rain the road was blocked and he could not appear on time. The trial court rejected the application holding that the chief examination of witness Rahul Mandal was conducted on 18.02.2025 and on that day due to absence of main counsel for the accused the cross-examination of Rahul Mandal 5 was postponed. On 13.06.2025 the witness Rahul Mandal was present before the court but due to absence of original records, time was granted to both the parties. On 17.09.2025 the witness Rahul Mandal was present but the accused orally submitted that his counsel could not appear before this court as he has been stuck in his way. The trial court then closed the opportunity of the accused to cross-examine the witness Rahul Mandal. 11. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. provides 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 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. 12. It is crystal clear that the Court has the power to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceeding and recall or re- examine any witness at any stage of proceeding wherever essential. In this case, the prosecution witness Rahul Mandal has been examined before the trial court. Therefore the petitioner has a legal right to cross-examine the prosecution witness Rahul Mandal. 13. Therefore, the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by 6 the applicant is hereby allowed and the order dated 17.09.2025 and 15.10.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narayanpur in Criminal Case No. 283/2021 is hereby set-aside. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima