14.09.2026 Item no.21 Ct. No.237 Suman C.R.R. 3799 of 2026 Dilip Roy Pandit Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr. Mr. Navanil De Mr. Srinjan Ghosh ..for the petitioner Mr. Amarta Ghosh Mr. Amit Roy ..for the State The petitioner challenges an order dated July 31, 2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Howrah, whereby the learned Sessions Judge rejected an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It appears that P.W. 15 deposed as an Investigating Officer, whose role was limited to submitting the charge-sheet. In his deposition, P.W. 15 clearly stated that the major part of the investigation had been conducted by another Investigating Officer, namely, Sub-Inspector D. K. Dey, who had since expired. From the deposition of P.W. 15, it further appears that he merely proved the signatures of the erstwhile Investigating Officer appearing on the sketch map of the place of occurrence, the inquest report, the seizure list and other relevant documents. The application for recalling P.W. 15 was filed only for the purpose of bringing out certain contradictions in the statements of four witnesses. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application. When it is an admitted position that P.W. 15 had not conducted the investigation, there could be no useful purpose in recalling and cross-examining him for the purpose of highlighting alleged contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has also rightly taken note of the fact that P.W. 15 had been discharged as far back as on September 21, 2019. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on November 18, 2019, and the case was fixed for argument on December 2, 2019. Thereafter, owing to prayers made by the parties on several occasions, the hearing of the arguments could not be concluded. The instant application was ultimately filed on July 31, 2026, after an inordinate lapse of time. The circumstances, therefore, clearly indicate that the application was filed only with the object of delaying the conclusion of the trial. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, C.R.R. 3799 of 2026 is dismissed. 2 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 3