JUDGMENT Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record including orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Banda dated 26.7.2005 and 30.9.2005.
2. It is submitted that learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 26.7.2005 summoned P.W. 6 Siraj Ahmad, Investigating Officer of the case and Constable, who had made entry in the G.D. on 6.8.2003. This order was passed by the Sessions Judge in exercise of his powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which provides that any criminal Court may at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, 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.
3. An objection was filed on behalf of the accused that in the order-dated 26.7.2005 the Court has not clarified that on what fact the reexamination of the Investigating Officer is necessary.
4. After having heard learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for defence also, learned Judge rejected the application of the accused and as such, a prayer has been made for quashing the order-dated 30.9.2005.
5. The main contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that the Court below was required to record reasons in its order for recalling the Investigating Officer for further cross-examination. He has no grievance against the order for summoning the Constable.
6. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Tahir and Ors. v. State of U.P. reported in 2000 (40) A.C.C. 311.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the decision relied upon by learned Counsel for the applicant. In my opinion, the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench does not help the applicant. The simple reason is that the impugned order-dated 26.7.2005 was passed by the Court suo motu and not on the application of the prosecution or defence. Moreover, second part of Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon or recall or re-examine any person/ witness if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. Such a power is inherent in a criminal Court for the reason that in the criminal Court every effort is made to reach to the truth. It appears that learned Sessions Judge felt necessity to recall the Investigating Officer for re-examination. In my opinion, none of the parties can agitate this matter and they cannot prevent the Court from exercising its power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Courts to do justice and every efforts should be made by the Court to separate this chaff from grain.
8. The criminal Courts are also required to ensure that no innocent person is convicted for any offence, which was actually not committed by him. In this view of the matter and in view of the clear provision of Sections 311 Cr.P.C. I am of the opinion that learned Sessions Judge committed no illegality in recalling the Investigating Officer. Consequently, I find that this application lacks of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. The application is accordingly dismissed.