ORDER : Amitav k. Gupta, J. Heard Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 and learned counsel for the State – A.P.P. The present revision is directed against the order dated 22.04.2014 passed by 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoghar in connection with S.C Case No.43 of 2013, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr. P.C filed by the prosecution for examination of the Doctor and the Investigating Officer has been rejected on the ground that the prosecution has not cited the name of the Investigating Officer and the Dr. Ashok Kumar is not in existence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigating officer, Albinus Indwar, is at present posted as Inspector at Palamau at Daltonganj having mobile No. 8084957027, is a material witness and the court was apprised about the transfer of the Investigating Officer from Deoghar to Palamau. It has further been submitted that in the charge-sheet, Dr. A. Kumar has wrongly been mentioned as Dr. Ashok Kumar instead of Dr. Arvind Kumar, who, at the relevant point of time, was posted at Sub-Divisional (Referral) Hospital, Madhupur, and is at present posted at Ranchi. That the petition under Section 311 Cr. P.C was filed for examination of doctor and Investigating Officer as they are the material witnesses, but the trial court without appreciating the provision of Section 311 Cr. P.C, has rejected the petition only on the grounds that the name of the Investigating Officer has not been cited and the Dr. Ashok Kumar was never posted at Sub-Divisional (Referral) Hospital, Madhupur and the petition filed by the prosecution was vague; that the court without ascertaing the veracity of the averments made by the prosecution and without taking steps for securing the attendance of the material witnesses has closed the prosecution evidence and the impugned order is not sustainable for the ends of justice. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that the order impugned has been passed after ascertaing the fact that Dr. Ashok Kumar was never posted in the Sub-Divisional (Referral) Hospital, Madhupur and the name of the Investigating Officer, Albinus Indwar has not been cited; that the laches and lacuna on the part of prosecution cannot be filled up under Section 311 Cr. P.C 4. Ashok Kumar was never posted in the Sub-Divisional (Referral) Hospital, Madhupur and the name of the Investigating Officer, Albinus Indwar has not been cited; that the laches and lacuna on the part of prosecution cannot be filled up under Section 311 Cr. P.C 4. Having heard the contention of the learned counsels, it is not disputed that the provision of Section 311 Cr. P.C cannot be invoked for filling up the lacuna in the prosecution case, but in the instant case, it is not the lacuna rather it is a case of technical glitches due to wrong mentioning of the name of the doctor as Dr. Ashok Kumar instead of Dr. Arvind Kumar, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the case was investigated by Albinus Indwar, who, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Officer-in-charge at Kairon Police Station in the District Deoghar though he has not been cited as a charge-sheeted witness. It is true that court is not supposed to collect evidence for the prosecution, but the court has a duty to ascertain the truth in administration of justice. It is evident that due to oversight and typographical error the name of the Investigating Officer was not cited as a witness, but admittedly, the case has been investigated and the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. The doctor's name has been wrongly mentioned as Dr. Ashok Kumar instead of Dr. Arvind Kumar. The said witnesses are material witnesses for discovering the truth of the prosecution case. It is relevant to point out that in the case of Anil Kumar Tiwary @ Anil Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2013) 3 Eastern Criminal Case, 252 (Jhr.) the court has given specific direction regarding the duty and role of the investigating officer, the prosecution as well as the court in the dispension of criminal justice. 5. In the emergent facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 22.04.2014, passed in S.C case No.43 of 2013 is, hereby set aside and the trial court is directed to take necessary steps for securing the attendance of the Investigating Officer, Albinus Indwar, who is presently Inspector of Police and Dr. Arvind Kumar, presently posted in Ranchi. 6. In the emergent facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 22.04.2014, passed in S.C case No.43 of 2013 is, hereby set aside and the trial court is directed to take necessary steps for securing the attendance of the Investigating Officer, Albinus Indwar, who is presently Inspector of Police and Dr. Arvind Kumar, presently posted in Ranchi. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand and Director, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand for securing the attendance of Dr. Arvind Kumar and Director General of Police, Jharkhand for appearance Albinus Indwar, Investigating Officer in the court of learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoghar in connection with S.C Case No.43 of 2013, arising out of Kairon P.S Case No.47 of 2012. 7. The trial court shall also take necessary steps for securing the attendance of the aforesaid witnesses within three months from the date of this order. 8. With the said direction and observation, the Criminal Revision Application is hereby, disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, at the cost of the petitioner.