Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121668 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24053 of 2025 Applicant :- Anand Kumar Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Ashutosh Kumar,Raj Kishore Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been preferred against the order dated 04.06.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Case No. 1072 of 2023 (State Vs. Balak Ram and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 241 of 2006, under Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Mohammadabad, District- Farrukhabad, whereby the application filed by prosecution under Section - 311 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and objections of applicants-accused have been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the aforesaid case pertains to the year 2006 and that applicants are facing trial since about 18 years. Evidence of all the prosecution witnesses was recorded and after that the the prosecution has moved an application under Section - 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh. It was submitted that in view of facts of the matter, no case for recalling of P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh was made out but despite that the application of prosecution has been allowed and order has been made to recall P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh. It was stated that the impugned order is against law and thus, liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused record. 6. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. The rules of procedure that have been designed to ensure justice are scrupulously followed, and the court must be zealous in ensuring that there is no breach of the same. 7. As far as question of jurisdiction under section 311 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is clear that Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at "any stage" of "any enquiry", or "trial", or "any other proceedings" under the Cr.P.C., or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, the Cr.P.C. has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even suo motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. 8. In the instant matter, it is correct that case is quite old but it appears that statement of P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh was recorded on 08.10.2024. Later the prosecution has moved an application under Section - 311 Cr.P.C., alleging that statement of said P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh was also recorded under Section - 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation but he has not been examined on that point and thus, P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh may be recalled. Applicants-accused have filed objections against the said application. It appears that after considering the matter, learned Trial court has observed that recalling of P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh was essential in order to render a just decision and his evidence would provide help in the trial. Considering facts of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned order is suffering from any material illegality or perversity. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice so as to require any interference by invoking powers under Section 528 BNSS. Hence, the prayer sought above is hereby refused. 9. However, speedy trial is an important right of an accused and that this case is pending since the year 2006. Thus, the Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of copy of this order before the court concerned, provided there is no legal impediment. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad