( 1 ) HEARD Mr. T. R. Kankale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. J. M. Gandhi, learned Special Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S. N. Mardikar, learned advocate for the Respondents. ( 2 ) THE State has challenged before this Court the order dated 8th October, 2004 passed by 3rd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions judge, Gondia, below Exh. 106 in Sessions trial No. 53/1999. The admitted position is that the prosecution has concluded examination of almost 22 witnesses and has filed on 21-8-2004 an application, Exh. 106 for permission to call for one Dr. Sunanda Dhenge a Forensic Expert from Raipur as witness. ( 3 ) THE averments contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application Exh. 106 are quoted below for ready reference :"1. That, Dr. Sunanda Dhenge, r/o. opposite r. K. C. Gate, G. E. Road, Raipur (CG) who is Ph. D. in Forensic Science and has carried out forensic investigation in the matter is a material witness in the matter and thus prosecution wants to call her as witness. 2. That, the said Dr. Sunanda Dhenge is material witness as she has done the examination of the spot of occurrence, the photographs provided by the police authority and other aspects involved in the matter and has prepared the report and has submitted the same. " ( 4 ) WHAT is sought to be proved by the prosecution is that the opinion given by this witness, which is based on spot inspection and photographs taken by her. The application consists of the statement that the said report has been submitted. The statement contained in Paragraph 3, however, suggests that the said report was brought on record before the High court. The learned Advocate for the respondents, however, disputes that the report and opinion etc. sought to be proved are filed before the Trial Court. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the case is of death caused due to hanging and the Court is called to rule upon in the course of trial as to its nature i. e. suicidal, homicidal or otherwise. What is sought to be proved is only in the form of opinion of expert on the basis of circumstantial evidence as to what was noted and interpreted by the expert. ( 6 ) THE learned Trial Court rejected the application observing that one expert Dr. What is sought to be proved is only in the form of opinion of expert on the basis of circumstantial evidence as to what was noted and interpreted by the expert. ( 6 ) THE learned Trial Court rejected the application observing that one expert Dr. K. K. Badhe of Forensic Department was stated as a witness is already examined and in that background, the evidence of the witness now sought to be examined seems to be that of total stranger. The Court found that though material witness could be summoned under Section 311 of Cr. P. C. , calling of evidence in the form of witness now sought to be examined amounted to supporting private and simultaneous investigation, which could not be permissible. ( 7 ) HERE is a case where the prosecution has in the course of trial chosen to rely on the opinion received from Dr. Sunanda dhenge and therefore, moved the application. The case has not reached the conclusion and therefore, according to prosecution, it wanted to prove the facts which were sought to be proved by evidence already recorded by addition of the experts evidence. ( 8 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor relied upon the citations namely (i) 1963 Cri. L. J. 234 = AIR 1963 SC 178 (Jamatraj Kewalji Govani Vs. State of Maharashtra) (ii) 1974 Cri. LJ. 453 = AIR 1974 SC 463 (Raghunandan Vs. State of U. P.) (iii) 1982 Cri. LJ. 2211 (Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab) (iv) (1999)6 SCC 110 (Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell) (v) 2002 Cri. LJ. 3134 (Sama Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) (vi) 2002 Cri. L. J. 4189 (Palacharia Rama rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) (vii) 2003 Cri. L. J. 4704 (Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan) (viii) 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 339 (Fatehsinh mohansinh Chauhan Vs. Union territory of Dadara and Havali, silvassa) (ix) 2005 (1) Bom. C. R. (Cri) 103 : [2004 allmr (Cri) 3314] (Narayan gurudas Kite Vs. State of maharashtra) (x) 2005 Cri. LJ. 201 (State of Sikkim vs. Sri Thnukchuk Lachungpa and anr.) (xi) 2005 Cri. L J. 716 (M/s. Chemo Steel ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union territory of Dadara and Havali, silvassa) (ix) 2005 (1) Bom. C. R. (Cri) 103 : [2004 allmr (Cri) 3314] (Narayan gurudas Kite Vs. State of maharashtra) (x) 2005 Cri. LJ. 201 (State of Sikkim vs. Sri Thnukchuk Lachungpa and anr.) (xi) 2005 Cri. L J. 716 (M/s. Chemo Steel ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of A. P. and Ors.) ( 9 ) THE bone of contentions while relying on all these citations is that the witness can be called or recalled or re-summoned without such calling (sic) to amount to filling of the lacuna in the prosecution case. Admittedly, in the present case a grievance as to investigation being inadequate was already raised. The matter was fought in this Court, and even upto Honble Supreme court on this point. The parties are common on the ground that Honble Supreme Court had left it at discretion of the investigation agency as to whether further investigation be carried out. The act of the prosecution by preferring application may be brought at the behest of the complainant for bringing on record the opinion of the expert, therefore, could be admitted to the evidence which could substitute fresh investigation for which discretion of investigation was already recognised and reserved by the Honble Supreme Court. In the circumstances, according to the learned additional Public Prosecutor, prayer for bringing before the Court the expert witness was just and reasonable and was in the aid of discovery of truth by the Court in the course of trial. ( 10 ) THE prayer was opposed by the learned Advocate Shri. Mardikar. In support of his submission, he relied upon following judgments, namely (i) (2003)7 SCC 749 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 253 (S. C.)] (Shakila Abdul gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raghunath dhoble and Anr. ). (ii) AIR 1991 SC 1346 (Mohanlal Shamji soni Vs. Union of India and Anr.) (iii) 1997 Cri. L. J. 3860 (S. R. S. Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.)THE learned Advocate Shri. Mardikar advanced the submission based on a proposition, that trial judge alone had to decide as to whether for reaching just decision of the case and for finding out the truth whether examination of any witness would be necessary under Section 311 of Cr. P. C. According to Shri. Mardikar, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding, that the application for permission to examine Dr. P. C. According to Shri. Mardikar, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding, that the application for permission to examine Dr. Sunanda Dhenge was without any merit and is amounted to permit the complainant to induct evidence which the prosecution has failed to collect in the course of investigation and according to learned advocate Shri. Mardikar, no fault whatsoever could be found with the impugned order. Moreover, according to learned Advocate this would amount to recognizing a system of parallel investigation, which being so found was deprecated by trial Court and rightly so. Mr. Mardikar further submitted that the accused No. 3 - Parvatabai is unwell due to heart disease and she is required to face the trial by frequently appearing before the Court and this therefore is additional circumstance and ground in favour of early disposal of the trial. ( 11 ) IT is clear that now the prosecution has preferred to take assistance of the evidence in the form of expert opinion which has come to their hand may be through complainant and the said evidence is in the shape of opinion as to the scene of offence on the basis of spot inspection and photographs taken by the said witness. No prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the accused persons if one witness is examined, more over such evidence would be subject to acid test of the cross-examination through the learned advocate for the accused persons. Moreover, this is an effort to bring before the Court all possible evidence for enabling the Court to reach the fact finding as to the imputations against the accused persons Submissions of prosecution are convincing and based on sound reasons. In the circumstances, it is considered necessary that it would be in the interest of justice, the witness sought to be examined by the prosecution would better if permitted and further loss of time which otherwise be lost could have been saved. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances, this Court is convinced that the order impugned deserves to be reversed and application Exh. 106 of sessions Trial No. 53/99 be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Looking to the urgency of parties, it shall suffice if this Court record its expectation that the trial Court would give due priority to the hearing and disposal of the sessions Trial No. 53/99. 106 of sessions Trial No. 53/99 be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Looking to the urgency of parties, it shall suffice if this Court record its expectation that the trial Court would give due priority to the hearing and disposal of the sessions Trial No. 53/99. ( 13 ) THE learned Advocate Shri. Mardikar expressed apprehension that in the event of routine transfer of case or transfer of presiding Officer or otherwise, due to any eventuality, the Judge to whom the trial may be allotted, may be requested to decide the trial on priority taking into consideration the fact that it is the Sessions Trial of 1999. The request of the learned Advocate is reasonable and the expectation expressed by this Court earlier would take care of this aspect as well. ( 14 ) LEARNED Advocate Shri. J. M. Gandhi who is Special Prosecutor appearing in the Special Court assures this Court that there would be an appropriate co-operation on the part of prosecution in conducting the trial. ( 15 ) WITH the above observations, the rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (i) and para 12 above. Writ be sent to the Court forthwith. Petition allowed.