D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Bachha Singh @ Bachcha Singh has field the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order impugned dated 7.1.2006 passed against the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2002.
(2.) THE petitioner with another is facing trial for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and after framing of charge several witnesses have been produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution including the informant as PW 12 and the witness Manoj Kumar Singh as PW 13. The petition of the petitioner was rejected as impugned whereby and whereunder it was prayed for recalling of the Investigating Officer (PW 12) for his further cross - examination by way of drawing his attention in relation to certain development made in his evidence adduced by PW 13 beyond the statement made before the police under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer was examined on 1.7.2004 as PW 12 and after him Manoj Kumar Singh was produced and examined on 6.7.2004 and 8.7.2004 as PW 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that PW 13 is an important witness of the prosecution in view of the contention of the First Information Report that at the relevant time of occurrence the PW 13 was driving the Gypsy of the deceased which was attacked by the criminals and Sakal - deo Singh succumbed his injuries. But he made certain development by introducing the name of the petitioner Bachha Singh in his statement before the Court on oath, though he had not implicated him before the police under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and being the decisive issue for the petitioner, prayer was made before the trial Court for recall of the Investigating Officer (PW 12) for his further cross -examination to draw his attention towards the earlier statement of the witness Manoj Kumar Singh (PW 13) so that contradiction may be obtained. Since Investigating Officer was examined as PW 12 much prior to the examination of PW 13 so there was no occasion for the petitioner to draw the attention of the Investigating Officer and for the ends of justice the prayer of the petitioner should have been allowed by the trial Court below, which unfortunately, could not be. Such refusal by the Court below has seriously prejudiced the accused -petitioner herein and which would amount to miscarriage of justice.
(3.) FINALLY it has been submitted that from perusal of the order impugned it would be evident that such refusal was made on the following grounds : (i) The direction of the Hon ble Court whereby and whereunder trial Court was directed to expedite the trial on day to day basis; (ii) It was within the knowledge that the Investigating Officer of the case was transferred to different place and there is no chance to bring the Investigating Officer within short span of time; (iii) The petition was filed only to frustrate the compliance of the direction of the superior Court; (iv) Perused the deposition of Investigating Officer and came to conclusion that Investigating Officer was cross -examined at length also in respect of the statement of Manoj Kumar Singh (PW 13) as contained from paragraphs 38 to 43; ;