Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - (1.) The impugned order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 2nd Court, at Islampur, District- Uttar Dinajpur in connection with Sessions Case No. 107 of 2013 allowing the prayer of the prosecution under Section 311 Cr. P.C to examine as many as three (3) witnesses is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application.
(2.) Learned advocate for the revisionists/petitioners submitted that the court below already fixed date for delivery of judgment after conducting a full trial with the examination of several witnesses, as produced by the prosecution, and during the interregnum period, the prosecution took out a petition under Section 311 Cr. P.C. praying for examination of three(3) more witnesses, who were neither could be shown in the chargesheet, nor produced earlier by the prosecution causing serious prejudice to defence. Thus according to revisionist, the order recorded by the learned Trial Court allowing scope for examination of three (3) more witnesses even after completion of a full trial, was against the principle of holding a fair trial, and the prayer for recording evidence of three (3) more witnesses, as proposed by the prosecution, was highly purposive, initiated simply to fill up the lacuna contained in the evidence, already adduced by the prosecution. The petitioners taking such grounds thus proposed for setting aside the order impugned.
(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Panda representing the State submitted that though the order impugned did not appropriately reflect the reasons for passing an order allowing prosecution to examine three (3) more witnesses, but the petition filed by the prosecution had sufficiently demonstrated the reasons presenting that out of the three (3) witnesses, proposed to be examined, two of them were eye witnesses/injured and the rest one was seizure witness. Thus, according to State/OP though the witnesses proposed to be examined, even after the examination of accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C, were not produced earlier, but same should not be treated as fatal for prosecution, because the very purpose behind the prayer was to facilitate the Court for arriving at just decision of this case.;