- (1.) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 17.7.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum -F.T.C. -I, Gumla in S.T. No. 355 of 1995, whereby the prayer, made on behalf of the petitioners for recalling the witnesses, namely, Samundari Devi, P.W. 5, Pawan Kumar Jaiswal, P.W. 11 and Ratan Lal Kasera, P.W. 15, for further cross -examination and also for calling for the register relating to transfer of ownership of Maruti Car bearing No. BR14C -9036, was rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that these petitioners were made accused for committing murder of Ram Sagar Kasera, owner of the vehicle bearing No. BR -14C -9036, and the driver, Ramu Ram Verma, as they were alleged to have been seen lastly in the company of the deceased and that there had been dispute relating to the financing of the said Maruti Car and that when the said car was seized by the police, it was released in favour of the widow of the deceased, Samundari Devi, P.W. 5, on furnishing indemnity bond with a condition to produce the same, whenever required by the court, but these petitioners came to know on 30.12.2003 that the Maruti Car has been sold by the informant, Ratan Lal Kasera, P.W. 15, and Samundari Devi, P.W. 5, to one Akhilesh Kumar. On getting this information, these petitioners procured documents from the District Transport Office showing signature of the deceased -Ram Sagar Kasera over the sale letter and, therefore, a petition was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses, namely, Samundari Devi, P.W. 5, Pawan Kumar Jaiswal, P.W. 11 and Ratan Lal Kasera, P.W. 15, so that they be cross -examined as to under what circumstances, the name of the deceased -Ram Sagar Kasera is appearing in the sale letter, when he is said to have been done to death and in that connection, the document was also sought to be called for from the District Transport Office, but learned court below rejected the plea though the witnesses need to be cross -examined for just decision of the case and under that situation, it was incumbent upon the court in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon the witnesses for their cross -examination and also to call for the register relating to transfer of the vehicle. Learned counsel in this respect has referred to a decision in the case of Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. Vs. Computer Joint India Ltd. reported in 2008 (4) East Cr. C 247 (SC). For better appreciation, the case of the prosecution, as has been narrated in the impugned order, needs to be taken notice of. It appears that these petitioners were seen going on a Maruti Car bearing No. BR -14C -9036 along with its owner, Ram Sagar Kasera, and its driver, Ramu Ram Verma. Subsequently, both of them, owner as well as the driver, were found murdered and the Car was found lying near the dead -bodies which subsequently was released in favour of widow of the deceased, Samundari Devi, P.W. 5. However, according to the petitioners, the said Car was sold to one Akhilesh Kumar through a sale letter over which the signature of the deceased -Ram Sagar Kasera is there and under this situation, the witnesses were sought to be recalled for their cross -examination presumably for eliciting answer as to under what circumstances, the name of the deceased -Ram Sagar Kasera is appearing in the sale letter who had died. Admittedly, it is not the case of kidnapping or abduction of the deceased -Ram Sagar Kasera for the purpose of murder, rather these petitioners were alleged to have committed murder of both the deceased on the premise that they were last seen in company of the deceased and moreover, the dead -bodies of both the deceased were recovered and when autopsy was made, it could be known that the deceased were strangulated to death and under this situation, no useful purpose would be served by recalling the witnesses for their cross -examination or for calling for the documents relating to transfer of the vehicle even if the sale letter does contain signature of the deceased -Ram Sagar Kasera and as such, I do not find substance in the submission that the witnesses need to be cross -examined for just decision of the case, as the appearance of signature of the deceased -Ram Sagar Kasera over the documents has nothing to do with the accusation made against the petitioners and as such, the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer made by the petitioners. However, it be stated that it becomes the duty of the court in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine those witnesses, as it considers absolutely necessary for doing justice, as has been held in the case referred to above, but here I do find that the purpose for which the witnesses have been sought to be cross -examined has nothing to do with the accusation made against the petitioners. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, I may say that any comment, made by the trial court regarding the documents being not genuine, seems to be unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.;