IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11675 of 2008 SANJEEV KUMAR, son of Brijnandan Singh, resident of village-Lai, P.S.- Kajra, District-Lakhisarai. ………Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar …….Opposite Party ----------- 02. 23.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Munger in Criminal Revision No. 345 of 2005 whereby the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Kiul in G.R. Case No. 25 of 2001 has been affirmed by which the learned Magistrate refused to summon one Krishan Chandra Prasad Singh as witness. The present case arises out of Jamalpur Rail P.S. Case No. 11 of 2001 registered under Sections 341, 342, 379, 365, 153 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. During trial the informant filed an application on 14.11.2005 for examining Krishan Chandra Prasad Singh as witness in the case. The basis for filing such application was para 7 of the evidence of P.W. 3, Brijnandan Singh to the effect that the said Krishan Chandra Prasad Singh conveyed to P.W. 3 one year ago that he was also in the bogy of the train in 2 which the occurrence took place and further P.W. 4 has stated that he came to know through his father that Krishan Chandra Prasad Singh was also present in the train bogy at the time of occurrence. From perusal of the records particularly the order of the Trial Court dated 23.11.2005, it appears that the informant never named Krishan Chandra Prasad Singh to be present at the P.O either in the F.I.R. or his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or during investigation or in his evidence. Moreover P.W. 3 in para 7 has admitted that one year prior to his deposition this fact was conveyed to him by the proposed witness Krishan Chandra Prasad Singh. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who are the source of information about the presence of the proposed witness are themselves hearsay witness. P.W. 4 came to know about the occurrence through his father who is also not an eye witness. None of the eye witnesses have suggested that the proposed witness Krishan Chandra Prasad Singh was seen at the place of the occurrence nor this fact has come during the investigation. The provision under Section 311 Cr.P.C. clearly envisages that the Court, at any stage of enquiry, trial or proceeding can summon any person as a witness or examine 3 any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. In my view, when the proposed witness has not been examined in 161 Cr.P.C., nor has been cited as a witness in the charge sheet and has belatedly after four years of occurrence been suggested by P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who are themselves hearsay witness, summoning such person as witness will be an abuse of process of the Court. In my view, examination of such person is absolutely not necessary for reaching to the just conclusion of the case. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Trial Court or the order dated 07.0-2.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Munger. The application stands dismissed. Since the F.I.R. is of 2005, it is expected that the Trial Court shall expedite the matter and dispose it of as early as possible. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)