ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner Bachha Singh @ Bachcha Singh has field the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order impugned dated 7.1.2006 passed against the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2002. 2. The petitioner with another is facing trial for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and after framing of charge several witnesses have been produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution including the informant as PW 12 and the witness Manoj Kumar Singh as PW 13. The petition of the petitioner was rejected as impugned whereby and whereunder it was prayed for recalling of the Investigating Officer (PW 12) for his further cross- examination by way of drawing his attention in relation to certain development made in his evidence adduced by PW 13 beyond the statement made before the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer was examined on 1.7.2004 as PW 12 and after him Manoj Kumar Singh was produced and examined on 6.7.2004 and 8.7.2004 as PW 13. 3. learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that PW 13 is an important witness of the prosecution in view of the contention of the First Information Report that at the relevant time of occurrence the PW 13 was driving the Gypsy of the deceased which was attacked by the criminals and Sakal- deo Singh succumbed his injuries. But he made certain development by introducing the name of the petitioner Bachha Singh in his statement before the Court on oath, though he had not implicated him before the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and being the decisive issue for the petitioner, prayer was made before the trial Court for recall of the Investigating Officer (PW 12) for his further cross-examination to draw his attention towards the earlier statement of the witness Manoj Kumar Singh (PW 13) so that contradiction may be obtained. Since Investigating Officer was examined as PW 12 much prior to the examination of PW 13 so there was no occasion for the petitioner to draw the attention of the Investigating Officer and for the ends of justice the prayer of the petitioner should have been allowed by the trial Court below, which unfortunately, could not be. Since Investigating Officer was examined as PW 12 much prior to the examination of PW 13 so there was no occasion for the petitioner to draw the attention of the Investigating Officer and for the ends of justice the prayer of the petitioner should have been allowed by the trial Court below, which unfortunately, could not be. Such refusal by the Court below has seriously prejudiced the accused-petitioner herein and which would amount to miscarriage of justice. 4. Finally it has been submitted that from perusal of the order impugned it would be evident that such refusal was made on the following grounds : (i) The direction of the Honble Court whereby and whereunder trial Court was directed to expedite the trial on day to day basis; (ii) It was within the knowledge that the Investigating Officer of the case was transferred to different place and there is no chance to bring the Investigating Officer within short span of time; (iii) The petition was filed only to frustrate the compliance of the direction of the superior Court; (iv) Perused the deposition of Investigating Officer and came to conclusion that Investigating Officer was cross-examined at length also in respect of the statement of Manoj Kumar Singh (PW 13) as contained from paragraphs 38 to 43; 5. Besides, the learned trial Court further observed that the present petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed with a dilatory tactics of the defence since it was bought about after a lapse of long time in view of the fact that Investigating Officer (PW 12) was examined on 1.7.2004, PW 13 was examined on 6.7.2004 and 8.7.2004 but the present petition was filed on 22.12.2005 and no attempt was made on behalf of the defence to file such petition on the intervening dates. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such grounds for the refusal of the petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the petitioner by the trial Court below is not sustainable In the eye of law which requires interference of this Court for the ends of justice. 7. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such grounds for the refusal of the petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the petitioner by the trial Court below is not sustainable In the eye of law which requires interference of this Court for the ends of justice. 7. I find substance in the argument of the defence that the grounds which have been set forth by the order impugned passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC IV, Dhanbad is not sustainable for refusal of the petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The observation of the trial Court below that after examination of PW 12 (Investigating Officer) five more witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution and that Investigating Officer was cross-examined at length with regard to the statement made by PW 13, Manoj Kumar Singh and that he found that almost all type of contradictions were obtained by the defence counsel from the Investigating Officer in relation to the statement of PW 13 amounts to an observation which can not sustain. Learned trial Court below failed to explain as to how the attention of the Investigating Officer (PW 12) was drawn with respect to certain development made in the statement of PW 13, the latter being examined after PW 12. It is nowhere mentioned that trial Court below did not find any development in the statement of PW 13 (Manoj Kumar Singh) in the Court when he compared it with that of his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In the result, the order impugned dated 7.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC IV, Dhanbad in Ses- sions Trial No. 301 of 2002 is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence it is set aside. However, the trial Court is directed to take all possible steps to recall Investigating Officer (PW 12) for his further cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner to the limited question in relation to alleged development, if at all, there was made by PW 13 (Manoj Kumar Singh) in his statement before the Court beyond what he had stated under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is allowed.