IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41684 of 2005 RAVI SHANKAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR For the petitioner: Mr.Shyam Sundar Sinha ‘Shyam’,Advocate. For the State : Mr.Ali Mozaffar, A.P.P. 8 16.2.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.8.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Tr.No.1520 of 2005 (G.R.No.72/93) whereby and whereunder he has allowed the prayer of the prosecution to adduce some documentary evidence by exercising power under section 311 of Cr.P.C. According to the prosecution case the petitioner and the informant were known to each other and there was an agreement in between them that the petitioner can use the shares purchased by the informant as the securities in course of his business. The petitioner returned most of the shares to the informant. Later on the informant wrote the petitioner to return the shares which he did not return and on verification it came to light that these shares were transferred to another person. On pursuation of the informant to return the shares the petitioner failed and , hence, the petitioner sold the share certificates for his allaged gain and the informant has been cheated and the accused person has committed breach of trust. After close of the prosecution case and at the stage of 2 argument a petition was filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C. that some documents were necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. A list of those documents mentioned was filed on 16.5.2005 before the court below. A rejoinder was filed in which the claim of the prosecution was contested and it was argued that those documents which are being sought to be brought on record were to be brought so that the prosecution may fill up its lacuna which is not permissible under section 311 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the scope of provision under section 311 of Cr.P.C. is wide and but liberty can not be exercised in favour of a party. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers the court to recall or re-examine any person in course of the trial if it feels necessity in the interest of justice. The condition precedent for examination of the witnesses is that court should come to the opinion that it is essential to just decision of the case. I have perused the order which was passed by the court below. The court below has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and it has come to the opinion that the evidence sought to be brought on record is essential for just decision of the case. Thus, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. 3 In this view, this petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. AnilKr.Sinha Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.)