Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4547 of 2025 Bikash Ranjan Barik ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Pranaya Kumar Dash -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.R.Jena, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.11.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the informant-Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to challenge by part of the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Khordha in S.T. Case No.155 of 2021. On perusal of the order dated 08.08.2024, it appears that the APP representing the prosecution filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall certain witnesses as has been indicated in the petition at Annexure-3 to the application. The learned trial court by virtue of the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 permitted the witnesses namely Bikash Ranjan Barik, Informant, daughter Ranjita Pradhan ASI P. Mohanty and Scientific Officer Suchismita Behera Page 2 of 4. to be recalled and further examined in this case. While doing so, the prayer to examine a new witness namely Souma Ranjan Barik has been rejected. Being aggrieved by such rejection of the prayer to examine Souma Ranjan Barik, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application. 4. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the abovenamed Souma Ranjan Barik is an eye- witness of the occurrence. Therefore his examination in the present case is essential for a just decision of the case. Accordingly, the prosecution moved the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to examine the abovenoted witness along with the further examination of the other witnesses indicated in the petition at Annexure-3. However, the petition filed by the prosecution has been rejected permitting further examination of the witnesses except the new witness Souma Ranjan Barik. It was contended that such order of rejection of the prayer to examine the abovenamed witness Souma Ranjan Barik is not supported by any reason. On perusal of the order dated 08.08.2024, it appears that the application has been disposed of mechanically by only taking into consideration the consent of the defence counsel. The Law is fairly well settled that while considering an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to examine the whole issue keeping in view the fact that the examination of such witnesses as has been prayed for by either side is essential for a just decision of the case. 5. Section 311 Cr.P.C. provides for discretion on the part of the learned trial court so far the first part of the Section is concerned i.e with regard to recalling of the witnesses at any stage of the trial for their examination, further examination, cross-examination. Such Page 3 of 4. discretion is subject to the mandate contained in the second part of the section wherein the trial court has to satisfy itself that recall of such witness is essential for a just decision of the case. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the learned trial court should have examined the whole issue pragmatically keeping in view the background facts of the case. On perusal of the order dated 08.08.2024, it appears that the order has been passed mechanically by only taking into consideration the consent of counsels appearing for either sides. It is needless to mention here that the provisions contained in Section 311 Cr.P.C. applies to both sides in a trial. While considering the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the focus of the learned trial court should be that the examination of such witness would help the trial court to reach at the truth of the matter, irrespective of the conclusion that is likely to be arrived at on conclusion of the trial. 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal position, further taking into consideration the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 at Annexure-4 passed in S.T Case No.155 of 2021, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated, at least the same is not manifest an order dated 08.08.2024 to the prayer of the prosecution to examine the new witnesses Souma Ranjan Barik. The Prayer could not have been rejected merely on the consent of the defence. The Court has to give specific reasons as to why the prayer for re-examination on recall of the witnesses are allowed and why such prayer is being rejected. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court remands the matter before the learned trial court to reconsider the application of the prosecution to examine the new witness namely Souma Ranjan Barik. After providing ample Page 4 of 4. opportunity to both sides, such prayer shall be considered strictly in accordance with law and shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within four weeks from today. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi