IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1589 of 2007 1. Nand Lal Singh S/o late Nathuni Singh, resident of village Itawa, P.O. Itawa, P.S. Pachrukhi, District Siwan. 2. Bishamar Singh son of late Nathuni Singh, village & P.O. Itawa, P.S. Pachrukhi, District Siwan -------------- Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 30.9.2008 Heard Mr. Raghav Prasad-1, advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, senior advocate and public prosecutor on behalf of the State. Petitioners are accused in S.T.no. 196/91 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.4, Siwan. It appears that Pachrukhi P.S. case no. 86/89 was registered under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of husband of the informant. The said case gave rise to S.T. 196/91 in which the charge was framed on 15.6.2001. Thereafter three prosecution witnesses were examined till 23.11.2001. The case remained pending for evidence and ultimately the prosecution case was closed. The defence evidence was also closed and on 27.11.2007 when the case was fixed for argument a petition was filed on behalf of prosecution under section 311 Cr.P.C. in which the prayer was made to re-open the case and allow the prosecution to examine material witnesses in the case. The matter was heard by the trial court and the prayer was allowed by 2 the impugned order dated 4.12.2007. Against the said order, the accused have preferred the present revision before this Court. According to learned counsel, after the impugned order, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is against the spirit of section 311 Cr.P.C. He submitted that the power under section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be used for filling up lacuna in the prosecution case. He also submitted that section 311 does not give a long rope to the prosecution to make a tool for harassment of the accused. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 2000(3) PLJR 220 (Keshav Choudhary and ors. Vs State of Bihar). Learned P.P., on the other hand, submitted that under section 311 Cr.P.C. two courses are possible. If valid reasons are made out, the court may allow any of the parties to call new evidence at any stage or it may suo motu call any witness if it is considered essential in the interest of justice. He submitted that the learned trial court in the impugned order has mentioned that the evidence of the witnesses is essential for a just decision of the case and thus has allowed the prayer of the prosecution. A trial continues till the judgment is delivered. So the power to examine witness under section 311 can be exercised so long as judgment has not been pronounced. It appears from the impugned order that the prayer has been allowed for examination of material witnesses for a just decision of the case by exercising the 3 power conferred under section 311 Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. This revision application accordingly stands dismissed. The court below, however, is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within six months from the receipt/communication of the order. (M.Saran,J) AI