IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4501 of 2008 RAJENDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 02- 6.5.2008 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar No.1 for the petitioner, and Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for opposite party no.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), is directed against the order dated 5.12.2007, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Criminal Revision No.72 of 2007 (Rajendra Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar), whereby the petitioner’s application has been rejected, and the order dated 20.1.2007, passed by the learned trial court under Section 311 of the Code, has been upheld. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this application may be indicated. Charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C., and the trial was registered as Trial No.1034 of 2006/ 764 of 2007, currently pending the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah. The prosecution examined the last witness on 2 12.8.2005. The prosecution was given the last opportunity on 8.5.2006 to examine further witnesses. On 9.5.2006, the prosecution case was closed. The statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code was recorded on 31.5.2006. The last defence witness was examined on 2.9.2006, and the defence case was closed on 15.9.2006. On the same day, the informant filed an application under Section 311 of the Code praying therein for permission to examine the informant who could not be examined earlier because of her illness. A copy of the application is marked Annexure-3 hereof. The same was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 20.1.2007. The accused person (petitioner herein) preferred the aforesaid Criminal Revision No.72 of 2007, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no reason has been assigned while allowing the application under section 311 of the Code. He further submits that it is manifest from a plain reading of the order of the learned trial court that the informant filed the application belatedly, notwithstanding which he allowed the application. 3 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that the matter has been considered and examined by the two courts who have in substance observed in their respective orders that the evidence of the informant is essential for a just decision of the case. In view of the position that the informant is sought to be examined, may be a little belatedly, it is not possible to disagree with the exercise of discretion uniformly by the two courts below for a just decision of the case, which is the prime requirement for applicability of Section 311 of the Code. I do not find adequate ground to interfere with the impugned order which is really in the interest of justice. 6. This application is rejected. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/