1 2025:CGHC:4916 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 341 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Pappu Pandey S/o Shri Akhilanand Pandey Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Chhata, P.S. - Bausdih Road, Distt. - Baliya (C.G.). Presently R/o Darripara, Near Atul Singhs House, Thana - Ambikapur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Surguja, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. The present petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision 2 No. 63/2024 by Learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Navneet Sharma had lodged an FIR against the petitioner and co-accused persons regarding loot of gold chain, bracelet etc Police Station Ambikapur bearing Crime No. 172/2018 under Section 394, 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation the police has filed the chargesheet before the learned Trial Court and the matter is registered as Criminal Case No. 794/2016 which is pending at evidence stage. During the trial the petitioner had moved an application under Section 311 of CR.P.C. before the learned Trial Court for calling PW-3 Suresh Bhagat for re-examination, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.08.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Court on the ground that after completion of prosecution evidence two more witnesses PW-4 Navneet Kumar Sharma and PW-5 Md. Asif have been examined therefore there is some new evidence and facts which have emerged and come on record therefore it is required to re-examine/cross-examine the Investigating officer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that PW-4 and PW-5 were examined after examination of the Investigation Officer (PW- 3) and in their examination certain new facts have emerged which were required to be cross-examined from PW-3. 5. Learned counsel for the State raised an objection in regard to the 3 submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of record would show that PW-3/ Investigating Officer Suresh Bhagat was examined prior to the witnesses PW-4 and PW-5. There are some new evidences and new facts which have emerged. Therefore the petitioner has filed the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court for calling PW-3/ Suresh Bhagat for re-examination/cross-examination but the learned Trial Court as well as Revisional Court have rejected the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. 8. 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. 9. 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, Investigating Officer was examined before the learned Trial Court prior to the witnesses PW-4 and PW-5. Therefore the petitioner has a legal right to cross-examine the I.O. 4 on the point of veracity, new facts emerged from the examination of PW-4 and PW-5. 10. Therefore, the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is hereby allowed and the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 63/2024 passed by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) is hereby set-aside. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima