Jharkhand High Court
Union Of India Through C.B.I vs M/S Jindal Steel Products Run By The ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:28281 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3736 of 2022
Union of India through C.B.I, ACB, Dhanbad, represented by Raghunath
Singh aged about 49 years, son of late Gaja Nand Kumar presently residing
at Inspector of Office of SP CBI, ACB, R/Q No. B-30, Sector XI T.V. Center
Koyla Nagar BCCL Township Dhanbad P.O. and P.S. Koyla Nagar, District
Dhanbad
...... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.M/s Jindal Steel Products Run by the Mahabir Prasad/ son of Rishi
Ramjindal, Lal Bazar Street, Room No. 316, Kolkata-1, P.O. and P.S. Lalbazar,
District-Kolkata (W.B.)
2. Mahesh Kumar Jindal, son of Shree Rishi Ram Jindal, Age 42 R/O AD-85
Bidhan Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake Kolkata, West Bengal
District -Kolkata, West Bengal ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl. PP. CBI
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate
12/ 16.09.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2. Notice upon O.P. No. 1 has already been effected.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 24.06.0222 passed by the learned SDJM-cum-Special Magistrate,
C.B.I, Dhanbad in R.C-06(A)/2001-D, whereby the learned court has been
pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioner under section 311 of
Cr.P.C, corresponding section 348 of BNSS, 2023, pending in the Court of
learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. has been
registered inter alia that during the period 1993-98, M/s Jindal Steel
Products, 2, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata and others as well as unknown officials
of Punjab National Bank, Kolkata and others by entering into a criminal
conspiracy and dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the Indian Railways and
Punjab National Bank, Kolkata by abusing their official position while working
as public servants and allowed and facilitated M/s Jindal Steel Products to
draw steel and zinc from the Railway Electrification Store Depot, near Nagpur
( 2025:JHHC:28281 )
on the basis of five numbers of forged and fabricated bank guarantee
amounting to Rs. 49,77,000.00 and thus caused wrongful gain to M/s Jindal
Steel Products.
4. He submits that in this background the F.I.R has been registered
which has been investigated by the C.B.I and chargesheet has been
submitted and materials have been brought as stated in paragraph nos. 5 to
11 of the Cr.M.P. He further submits that during trial prosecution has
examined 25 witnesses out of cited 29 witnesses in the chargesheet. He
submits that the learned SDJM-cum-Special Magistrate has closed the
prosecution evidence on 04.05.2022 and I.Os/PWs namely, Shri B.K. Birdi,
D.K. Mukherjee and Sudhanshu Shekar have not been examined and in this
background the petitioner filed a petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C
corresponding section 348 of BNSS, 2023 before the learned court which has
been rejected by impugned order. He further submits that sprit of Section
311 of Cr.P.C, corresponding section 348 of BNSS, 2023 has not been
interpreted in its right direction by the learned court by rejecting the said
petition only on the ground of delay and closed the prosecution evidence and
said application has been rejected. He further submits that spirit of that
section is to find out the truth and to take just decision and if the case is
made out for just decision the learned court was required to allow the said
petition. He further submits that the petitioner herein has not tried to fill up
any lacuna in view of the fact that the I.Os. are materials witness, the said
petition has been filed which has been rejected by the learned court and to
buttress this argument, he relied in the case of " Natasha Singh Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation" reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741. He
refers to paras 15, 16 and 22 which reads as under:-
( 2025:JHHC:28281 )
"15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the Court to
determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all
relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just
decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not
capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such
power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section
311 Cr.P.C. must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the
prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or
to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an
unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence
must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of
the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised,
provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is
germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must
be given to the other party.The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of
justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with
great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as 'any
Court', 'at any stage", or 'or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings', 'any
person' and 'any such person' clearly spells out that the provisions of this
section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit
the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh
evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The
determinative factor should therefore be, whether the
summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just
decision of the case.
16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of
the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in
any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of
the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper
opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as
this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. Thus, under no
circumstances can a person's right to fair trial be jeopardized. Adducing
evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of such right
would amount to the denial of a fair trial. Thus, it is essential that the
rules of procedure that have been designed to ensure justice are
scrupulously followed, and the court must be zealous in ensuring that
there is no breach of the same. (Vide: Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar
Purshottam Mondkar & Anr., AIR 1958 SC 376; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh
& Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 3114; Zahira Habibullah
Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1367; Kalyani Baskar
(Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam (Mrs.), (2007) 2 SCC 258; Vijay Kumar v. State
of U.P. & Anr., Sudevanand v. State.
22. In view of above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment
and order of the Trial Court, as well as of the High Court impugned before
us, are set aside. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the
appellant is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned
Trial Court on the 17th of May, 2013, and the learned Trial Court is
requested to fix a date on which the appellant shall produce the three
witnesses, and the same may thereafter be examined expeditiously in
accordance with law, and without causing any further delay. Needless to
say that the prosecution will be entitled to cross examine them."
5. Relying on the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, that has been
held in the said case. He submits that if the case is made out of exercising
power under section 311 of Cr.P.C, corresponding section 348 of BNSS, 2023
( 2025:JHHC:28281 )
the learned court is required to exercise such power for just decision of the
case. He further relied in the case of "State Vs. N. Seenivasagan"
reported in (2021) 14 SCC 1. He refers to para 12 of the said judgment
which is as under:-
"12. In our view, having due regard to the nature and ambit
of Section 311 of the CrPC, it was appropriate and proper that the
applications filed by the prosecution ought to have been allowed.
Section 311 provides that any court may, at any stage of any inquiry,
trial or other proceedings under CrPC, summon any person as a
witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned
as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined
and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine
any such person "if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the
just decision of the case". The true test, therefore, is whether it
appears to the Court that the evidence of such person who is sought
to be recalled is essential to the just decision of the case."
6. Relying on the above judgment and he submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that true test is to find out essential to the just
decision of the case.
7. Relying on above two judgments and referring the facts of the
present case, he further submits that the aforesaid I.Os. are required to be
examined as they are material witness in view of that the learned court has
wrongly passed the said order. He further submits that within the stipulated
time if the court allows, the three I.Os. will be examined. On this ground he
submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 vehemently
opposes the prayer and submits that the learned court has rightly passed the
order. He further submits that at a belated stage the said petition has been
filed and the learned court considering the spirit of Section 311 of Cr.P.C,
corresponding section 348 of BNSS, 2023 has rightly passed the impugned
order. According to him Section 311 Cr.P.C, corresponding section 348 of
BNSS, 2023 cannot be invoked for filling up the lacuna and to buttress this
( 2025:JHHC:28281 )
argument, he relied in the case of " U.T. of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and
Another Vs. Fatehsingh Mohansinh Chauhan" reported in (2006) 7
SCC 529. He refers to paras 15, 16 and 17 of the said judgment.
9. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that once prosecution
evidence is closed for filling up the lacuna the said petition cannot be
allowed. He further submits that the learned court has passed the order and
there is no illegality in the impugned order.
10. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties the Court has gone through the materials on record including the
impugned order. Admittedly, chargesheet has been submitted against the
accused persons. Trial has proceeded and the witnesses on behalf of
prosecution has been closed on 04.05.2022 and thereafter petition has been
filed for summoning the aforesaid three I.Os as P.Ws which has been
rejected by the learned court.
11. The scope and object of Section 311 of Cr.P.C, corresponding
section 348 of BNSS, 2023 is to enable the Court to determine the truth and
to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining
proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. This power
is required to be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as
any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable
results. There is no doubt that an application under section 311 Cr.P.C,
corresponding section 348 of BNSS, 2023 must not be allowed only to fill up
a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the
disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of
the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further,
the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to
( 2025:JHHC:28281 )
change the nature of the case. That power can be utilized to find out
germane to the issue involved. However, if the case is made out, to summon
any accused and the Court comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to
find out just reason of the case that can be allowed subject to rebuttal.
The said power can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding and do not
limit the discretion of the Court in any way and further it is expected that
Trial Court of a sessions case or any court should proceed with reasonable
expedition and pendency of such a matter for years together is not desirable
but then the length/duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement
of ensuring the just decision after taking all the necessary and material
evidence on record. The age of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the
matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness.
12. If the I.Os have been sought to be called by way of issuing the
summon, there is no doubt that I.Os. are material witness and for just
decision the I.Os are required to be examined, has been held in the aforesaid
two judgements in the case of " Natasha Singh" (supra) and N.
Seenivasagan (Supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
13. So far the judgment relied by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the
O.P. No.2 in the case of Fatehsingh Mohansinh Chauhan (supra) is
concerned, there is no doubt that for filling up lacuna and to alter the
nature of the case that exercise cannot be allowed. In that case the
witnesses have already been examined and the Court has found that for
filling up the lacuna the said petition has been filed in that view of the matter
the said order has been passed.
14. What has been discussed hereinabove, the three of the
witnesses are the material witnesses who have not been examined at any
( 2025:JHHC:28281 )
point of time in the proceeding in that view of the matter the judgment relied
by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 is not helping the O.P. No.2.
15. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis and considering
that the I.Os are material witnesses for just decision, the impugned order is
not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
24.06.0222 passed by the learned SDJM-cum-Special Magistrate, C.B.I,
Dhanbad in R.C-06(A)/2001-D is set aside. The learned court shall summon
the aforesaid three I.Os whose name has been noted hereinabove and give
opportunity of examining them with right of rebuttal to the accused persons
and this exercise must be completed within six weeks.
16. The learned court will not provide adjournment for examining
three witnesses unless a cogent reason is brought in the knowledge of the
court.
17. This petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms.
18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned
court through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.
Dt.16.09.2025 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/A.F.R.
