IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3074 of 2011 PAPPU KUMAR @ RAM RANJAN KUMAR alias Ram Ranjan Kumar son of Late Shyamdeo Prasad, R.O.V marichagadh, P.S& P.S. Sarai Dist-Vaishali Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner:- Neeraj Kumar, Advocate For the State:- Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. --------------------- 2 30.03.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner is one of the accused on trial in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 2002 pending before Additional Sessions judge, 2nd Vaishali at Hazipur. He filed a petition praying for the issuance of summons against three persons whose name appeared in order dated 10.8.2010. One of the persons namely Roop Kumar @ Gopal Kumar son of Hemant Kumar Sinha village-Marichagarh P.S. Sarai District-vashaili was said to be dead for whose murder, the petitioner was put on trial in the above noted case and he was, on account of some unimpeachable evidence, found living. The Court was refusing to summon him because he was allegedly the deceased of the case. It is necessary to point out that the very existence of Court is for handling out justice. Justice does not mean that a few witnesses are examined and on mechanical consideration of those evidences a judgment of acquittal or conviction is passed. If certain evidence appears necessary for the just decision of the case as also in the interest of justice, and the Court fails to bring those evidences on record, then its very existence could pale into peril. The powers of this Court under Section 482 are three fold and it, 2 lastly, reads that the Court has to act “otherwise to secure the ends of justice”. Word „otherwise‟ is very important. If the Court finds that complete and substantial justice was necessary to be done and the procedure of the Cr.P.C. may not be sufficient in that behalf, then it may resort to such procedures or methods which may not have approval of the Code and do justice. I find such meaning flowing from the above part of the procedure. In addition to what I have just stated, provisions U/s 311 Cr. P.C. or Section 165 Evidence Act have also been frame to aid a Court in tackling any such eventuality. I direct the Court below to issue summons as prayed for by the petitioner, which prayer was dismissed by it by its order dated 10.8.2010. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Anand Kr./Prakash ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)