CGHC010491842025 2026:CGHC:34132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3534 of 2025 Prahlad Singh Thakur S/o Lt. Bahoran Singh Thakur Aged About 65 Years R/o Quarter No. 01/A, Russian Complex Sector 07 Police Station Sector - 06, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sher Singh Sethiya S/o Shambhunath Sethiya R/o Kuruspal Post Kohka Development Block Bakavand District Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Lalit Kumar Baghel S/o Narsingh Baghel R/o 33/e, Risali Sector, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl AG For Private Respondent-3 : Shri Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.08.2026 Heard Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Addl AG for the State and Shri Arvind Dubey, learned counsel for the private respondent-3. Crmp 3534 of 2025 2 1. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No.170/2025 affirming the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No.2291/2020, whereby the application preferred by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking summoning/examination of the Branch Managers of Axis Bank, Devendra Nagar, Raipur and UCO Bank, Civic Centre, Bhilai as prosecution witnesses came to be partly rejected. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned orders and a direction to summon the aforesaid witnesses for their examination. 2. The petitioner filed this petition with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and kindly quash the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure A/1) & 26.06.2025 (Annexure A/2) and allow summoning of additional witness on the basis of an application under section 311 CrPC, in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, Crime No.94/2020 was registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, for the offences punishable under Crmp 3534 of 2025 3 Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is alleged that the accused persons induced the petitioner and other investors to invest money in the name of “Jai Krishak S.S.S. Enterprises” by assuring them of exorbitant returns and, on such representation, dishonestly obtained an amount of Rs.16,90,000/- from the petitioner, besides amounts allegedly collected from other victims. During the course of investigation, the relevant bank statements and other documents pertaining to the aforesaid transactions were seized and incorporated in the charge-sheet. The prosecution had cited the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, as prosecution witness No.6 and the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Civic Centre, Bhilai, as prosecution witness No.7, their evidence being relevant for proving and establishing the bank transactions forming an important part of the prosecution case. 4. During course of the trial, prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC seeking examination of the aforesaid bank witnesses, along with certain other witnesses, on the ground that their evidence was necessary for bringing the relevant banking transactions and documents on record. The learned Trial Court, however, by order dated 26.06.2025, partly allowed the application in respect of certain witnesses but declined the prayer insofar as the concerned bank witnesses were concerned, principally on the ground that despite opportunities having been granted, the prosecution/police had not furnished the particulars of the persons who were posted as Branch Crmp 3534 of 2025 4 Managers at the relevant time. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg vide order dated 13.10.2025. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the true scope and object of Section 311 CrPC. It is contended that the two bank witnesses were not witnesses sought to be introduced for the first time at the instance of the petitioner, but were already included in the prosecution witness list and are directly connected with the documentary evidence relating to the bank transactions. According to learned counsel, the prosecution case itself rests, inter alia, upon the allegation that the amount of Rs.16,90,000/- paid by the petitioner was transferred from his UCO Bank account to the Axis Bank account of the accused, and therefore, the evidence of the concerned bank officials is material for establishing the said transaction. 6. Learned counsel further submits that omission on the part of the prosecution/police to furnish names of the Branch Managers who were posted at the relevant point of time, cannot result in denial of an opportunity to place material evidence before the Court. It is argued that application under Section 311 CrPC was moved precisely with a view to secure the attendance of such material witnesses and to bring the relevant bank records and transactions on record. The power under Section 311 CrPC is intended to enable the Court to arrive at the truth Crmp 3534 of 2025 5 and to prevent failure of justice on account of an inadvertent omission or procedural lapse. It is, therefore, submitted that the Courts below have adopted a technical approach, instead determining whether the proposed evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. 7. It is further contended that Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers very wide powers upon the Court to summon any witness at any stage of the proceedings, if such evidence appears to be essential for arriving at the truth. According to learned counsel, the Trial Court adopted a hyper- technical approach in rejecting the application merely because the prosecution failed to furnish the names of the incumbent Branch Managers despite repeated directions. It is submitted that procedural lapses on the part of the investigating agency, or the prosecution, ought not to defeat the cause of justice. Reliance is placed on the settled principle that a fair trial encompasses the rights of the victim, the accused as well as society, and the court is not only empowered but is under an obligation to summon and examine such witness. It is submitted that the impugned orders, therefore, deserve to be set aside and the concerned bank witnesses be directed to be examined. 8. Learned counsel for the State supported the petitioner’s submission. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 supports the orders passed by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that the criminal case has been pending since the year 2020 and sufficient opportunities Crmp 3534 of 2025 6 were granted to the prosecution to produce its witnesses. Despite the directions issued by the Trial Court on 19.05.2025 and 24.05.2025, the prosecution and the police failed to furnish the requisite particulars of the concerned Branch Managers and failed to secure their presence. It is therefore, contended that the Trial Court was justified in closing the opportunity of the prosecution and in partly rejecting the application filed under Section 311 CrPC. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 further submits that the power under Section 311 CrPC is discretionary and is required to be exercised judiciously and not merely to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case. According to him, the revisional Court has already examined the matter and has found that adequate opportunity had been granted to the prosecution. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The short question which arises for consideration is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the evidence of the concerned bank officials is essential for the just decision of the case, or not, and whether the application under Section 311 CrPC ought to have been allowed. 13. Section 311 CrPC confers a wide power upon the criminal Court to summon any person as a witness, or to examine any person in Crmp 3534 of 2025 7 attendance, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The provision consists of two parts. The first part confers a discretionary power upon the Court, whereas the latter part casts a mandatory obligation upon the Court where the evidence of such person appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, while considering the scope of Section 311 CrPC, held that the determinative consideration is whether the evidence of the witness is essential to the just decision of the case. The provision is intended to enable the Court to discover the truth and render a just decision which reads as under:- “18. The next important question is whether Section 540 (Section 311 of the Cr.P.C/ 348 of B.N.S.S)gives the court carte blanche drawing no underlying principle in the exercise of the extraordinary power and whether the said section is unguided, uncontrolled and uncanalised. Though Section 540 is, in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to the stage at which the powers of the court should be exercised, or with regard to the manner in which they should be exercised, that power is circumscribed by the principle that underlines Section 540, namely, evidence to be obtained should appear to the court essential to a just decision of the case by getting at the truth by all lawful means. Therefore, it should be borne in mind that the aid of the section should be invoked only with the object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts for a just decision of the case and it Crmp 3534 of 2025 8 must be used judicially and not capriciously or arbitrarily because any improper or capricious exercise of the power may lead to undesirable results. Further it is incumbent that due care should be taken by the court while exercising the power under this section and it should not be used for filling up the lacuna left by the prosecution or by the defence or to the disadvantage of the accused or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused or to give an unfair advantage to the rival side and further the additional evidence should not be received as a disguise for a retrial or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties.” 15. In Natasha Singh v. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the power under Section 311 CrPC is very wide and can be exercised at any stage of the trial, but the same has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The Court emphasised that the test is whether it is essential to examine the witness for arriving at a just decision. 16. Recently, in Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 19 SCC 646, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the power under Section 311 CrPC is intended to ensure that every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by the Court to keep the record straight, clear ambiguity in the evidence and ensure that no prejudice is caused to any party. The Court also reiterated that the expression “essential to the just decision of the case” is the controlling consideration in exercise of the power and held that: Crmp 3534 of 2025 9 “49. Further, in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (5) 22, the Court reiterated the extent of powers under Section 311 and held that: (SCC p. 392, para 27) “27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is 'at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code'. It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind.” 17. The Supreme Court has also emphasised that the criminal Court cannot remain a mere spectator where material evidence necessary for arriving at the truth has not been brought before it. In a recent decision in case of K. P. Tamilmaran v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Crmp 3534 of 2025 10 Police, 2025 SCC Online SC 958, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court is under obligation to ensure that evidence which is essential for the just decision of the case is brought on record, and that Section 311 CrPC enables the Court to take an active role in securing such evidence. 18. Tested on the aforesaid principles, this Court finds considerable force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The allegation against the accused is one of cheating involving an amount of Rs.16,90,000/- allegedly received from the petitioner. The prosecution case specifically concerns transfer of money from the petitioner's UCO Bank account to the Axis Bank account, allegedly connected with the accused. The bank statements and other banking documents relating to the alleged transactions form part of the investigation and charge-sheet. Significantly, the concerned bank officials were already shown in the prosecution witness list as prosecution witness Nos.6 and 7. Thus, this is not a case where the prosecution seeks to introduce an entirely new and extraneous witness after conclusion of its evidence. 19. The evidence of the concerned bank officials has a direct bearing upon the banking transactions which constitute an important link in the prosecution case. Their examination would enable the Trial Court to appreciate the relevant bank records, the movement of the alleged amount and the authenticity and nature of the banking transactions in accordance with law. Whether such evidence ultimately supports or does Crmp 3534 of 2025 11 not support the prosecution case is a matter for appreciation at the conclusion of the trial. At this stage, the Court is only required to determine whether such evidence is essential for a just adjudication. In the considered opinion of this Court, and the answer is in the affirmative. 20. The fact that the prosecution had earlier failed to secure the presence of the witnesses, or failed to furnish the names of the officers who were posted as Branch Managers at the relevant point of time, cannot by itself be treated as conclusive against the prosecution when the witnesses are, otherwise shown to be material to the case. The power under Section 311 CrPC is precisely intended to prevent failure of justice arising from omission to bring necessary evidence on record. The object of the provision is not to punish a party for every procedural lapse, but to ensure that the Court reaches the truth on the basis of relevant and legally admissible evidence. 21. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the criminal case has remained pending since the year 2020 and that the Trial Court had granted opportunities to the prosecution. However, the consideration of delay cannot override the statutory mandate contained in the latter part of Section 311 CrPC where the evidence of a witness appears essential to the just decision of the case. The concern regarding delay can adequately be addressed by directing the Trial Court to secure the attendance of the concerned witnesses and conclude their examination, including cross-examination, without granting unnecessary adjournments. Crmp 3534 of 2025 12 22. It is also material that the application under Section 311 CrPC was moved by the prosecution itself. The prayer was not made merely for the purpose of filling up an insignificant omission, but for examining bank witnesses, whose evidence relates to the very documentary material forming part of the charge-sheet. In such circumstances, refusal to examine the witnesses on the technical ground that their names or particulars were not properly furnished by the police would, in the considered opinion of this Court, defeat the substantive object of a fair trial. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a fair trial is not confined merely to the rights of the accused; it also encompasses the legitimate interest of the victim and the society in a proper adjudication of the criminal charge. The Court's paramount duty is to arrive at the truth and to ensure that the proceedings culminate in a just decision. The power under Section 311 CrPC is one of the important procedural safeguards available to the criminal Court for achieving that object. 24. In the present case, therefore, the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court, insofar as it declined to summon/examine the concerned bank witnesses despite their relevance to the bank transactions forming part of the prosecution case, and the revisional Court's subsequent affirmation thereof, cannot be sustained. The impugned orders have resulted in shutting out evidence which, on the face of the record, appears material and essential for a just decision of the case. Crmp 3534 of 2025 13 25. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No.170/2025 and the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No.2291/2020, to the extent they decline the prayer under Section 311 CrPC concerning the concerned bank witnesses, are hereby set aside. 26. The application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 CrPC is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The learned Trial Court shall summon and examine the concerned competent bank officials/witnesses from Axis Bank, Devendra Nagar, Raipur and UCO Bank, Civic Centre, Bhilai, who are competent to prove the relevant bank records and transactions forming part of the charge-sheet. The Trial Court shall ensure that the accused persons are afforded full opportunity of cross-examination in accordance with law. 27. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to the question of relevancy and necessity of the proposed evidence for the purpose of Section 311 CrPC and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the defence of the accused. 28. Considering the fact that the criminal case is pending since the year 2020, the learned Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the aforesaid witnesses and proceed with their examination expeditiously. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side. Crmp 3534 of 2025 14 29. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, considering the pendency of the criminal case since the year 2020, the learned Trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, without being influenced by any observations made herein, which have been recorded solely for the purpose of deciding the present petition. 30. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma