Order : Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VII, Dhanbad in connection with S.T. Case No. 550 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 2177 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the applications filed by the prosecution on 25.04.2016 and 04.05.2016 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. have been allowed. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2013 and in fact after the examination of the witnesses, the defence has argued its case on 3 dates and only on the verge of conclusion of the trial, applications without any reasons were filed for examination of Investigating Officer – Anil Kumar Singh and one A.S.I. - N.K. Jha under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that Mr. N.K. Jha who is said to have recorded the dying declaration of the deceased was neither examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. nor is he charge-sheeted witness. It is stated that at the belated stage, such applications are filed by the prosecution to fill up the lacunae as the petitioner has already disclosed his defence. In such circumstances, prayer has been made that the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that the examination of the Investigating Officer and A.S.I. - N.K. Jha will lead to a just decision of the case as their evidences are vital to the case. It has further been submitted that N.K. Jha has never been examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. nor his name figured as a charge-sheeted witness. 5. It appears that at the fag end of trial, two applications were preferred by the prosecution on 25.04.2016 and 04.05.2016. The first application was for examination of the Investigating Officer whereas the second application dated 04.05.2016 was for examination of A.S.I. - N.K. Jha who is said to have recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. The case diary reveals that the statement of N.K. Jha had never been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and he was also not made a witness in the charge-sheet. The case diary reveals that the statement of N.K. Jha had never been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and he was also not made a witness in the charge-sheet. It would thus appear that only to fill up a lacunae in the prosecution case such applications had been filed. The learned trial court in its order dated 28.05.2016 has not considered this aspect of the matter that a prejudice would cause to the defence if at the late hour, the person who is not even named in the charge-sheet and whose name never figured in the case diary is examined. So far as the examination of the Investigating Officer is concerned, the same has been allowed as due to clerical mistake the summons and letter for securing the attendance of Anil Kumar Singh was wrongly issued. Even otherwise, the evidence of the Investigating Officer is necessary for the just decision of the case. In such circumstances therefore, the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. so far as the examination of the Investigating Officer is concerned does not require any interference. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 so far as it relates to the examination of A.S.I. - N.K. Jha is hereby quashed and set aside by sustaining the order so passed for examination of the Investigating Officer. 6. Since the petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2013, the learned trial court is directed to examine the Investigating Officer and conclude the trial within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is received by the court concerned. 7. This application stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.