- (1.) THE petitioner/State is prosecuting the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 on a charge under Sections 392/397/411 of the Indian Penal Code, before the learned Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, City Sessions Court at Calcutta in connection with the Sessions Case No.8 of 2008. The background facts, which prompted the State to move this criminal revisional application before this Court, in brief, are as follows: - An incident of dacoity was reported to Jorabagan Police Station by one Sri Samar Dey, an alleged eye -witness to the occurrence and his oral statement was reproduced in writing by one Sri P. K. Mitra, Sub -Inspector of Police, who was then posted as the duty officer of the said Police Station. The said recorded statement was then treated as the F.I.R. and the then Additional Officer -in -Charge, Jorabagan Police Station, namely, Sri Monoj Kumar Das entrusted the investigation of the case to the said P.K. Mitra. The said police officer after investigating the case in part expired and, thereafter, S.I. Makhan Lal Gupta took up the investigation, concluded the same and submitted charge -sheet. During the trial, the said Makhan Lal Gupta deposed in court that he knew the signature of the deceased, P. K. Mitra but in cross -examination, he admitted that he was never posted at the aforesaid Police Station with the said P.K. Mitra. At this stage, the State filed an application for examination of the then Additional Officer -in -Charge of Jorabagan Police Station, namely, Monoj Kumar Das as a court witness for proving the hand -writing of the deceased police officer in whose hand the statement of the informant was claimed to have been recorded. The learned trial Judge rejected such prayer of the State.
(2.) THE learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that examination of the Officer -in -Charge of Jorabagan Police Station, who endorsed the case to the deceased P.K. Mitra, is very much necessary for just decision in the matter and he submitted that if the content is not proved, then it will prejudice the prosecution case.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused persons vehemently opposed this application and submitted by drawing attention of this Court to the application moved on behalf of the State that no reason has been assigned in the said application as to why the examination of the said police officer is necessary in the matter. She further submitted that it was never elicited from the cross -examination of P.W.20, Makhan Lal Gupta that he was never posted with the deceased police officer, who recorded the statement of the informant. After he claimed to have known the signature of the deceased police officer, when admitted he was never posted at the same Police Station with the deceased police officer, only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case that he may not be a fit person to prove the signature, the application under Section 311 CrPC has been moved. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the impugned order and other materials on record. Considered their respective submissions.;