IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.47100 of 2008 1. Sachidanand Ojha 2. Rajib Ranjan @ Rajiv Ranjan Kumar 3. Janardan Ojha 4. Manoj Kumar 5. Ved Prakash Sharma 6. Krishna Nandan Ojha 7. Nawal Ojha 8. Shambhu Ojha 9. Sanjay Ojha @ Kundan Kumar 10. Lalan Kumar @ Lalan Ojha 11. Satish Ojha 12. Vipin Ojha ------------------ Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Smt. Jayanti Ojha --------------- Opposite Parties ***** 5 28-9-2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.9.2008 passed by Sri D.M.Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Trial no. 478 of 2008 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 235 of 2000 by which he has allowed the petition of the informant under section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling the witnesses for their examination, after the evidence of the witnesses was closed. In the case, prosecution has been allowed to examine its witnesses, objection is that summons bailable and non-bailable warrant 2 issued then only evidence of prosecution witnesses was closed, accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the stage was for argument in the case. Prosecution petition is said to fill up the lacuna which could not be done. Section 362 Cr.P.C. provides about no alteration or review of a judgment or final order disposing of a case save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force by any Court after signing the same. Section 311 Cr.P.C can be said a saving provision for examining any witness in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined, summon any person, a witness at any stage. In the instant case, summons, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant were issued for appearance of witnesses but observation of the trial court is that none was served and prosecution evidence was closed. In such circumstance, petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. has rightly been allowed for recalling the witnesses for their examination. Finding no illegality in the 3 impugned order dated 15.9.2008 passed in Trial No. 478 of 2008, this application for quashing is accordingly, dismissed. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)