ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.6.2016 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 151 of 2013 arising out of B.S. City P.S. Case No. 123 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 459 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court had exercised suo motu powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and had summoned two non-charge-sheeted witnesses for their examination. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thrice the date was fixed for the pronouncement of the judgment, but the learned trial court while exercising its suo motu powers had summoned 2 witnesses for their examination. Learned counsel further submits that earlier also the prosecution evidence was closed after examination of the charge-sheeted witnesses and thereafter applications were filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. which were allowed, but subsequently at the time of pronouncement of judgment, the learned trial court had exercised its suo motu powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the examination of the witnesses as had been directed in the impugned order dated 1.6.2016 are not of much importance, but the learned trial court without any basis had passed the impugned order dated 1.6.2016. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that an FIR was lodged wherein it was alleged that at the time of patrolling inside Bokaro Steel Plant, a foul smell was found emanating and on enquiry, it was detected that in the sewerage system attached to the wall of the plant, dead body of 4 persons were found which were in a highly decomposed state and a rope was also found lying near the dead bodies. The matter was informed to the higher authorities, but hone were able to identify the dead bodies. Based on the aforesaid allegations, B.S. City P.S. Case No. 123 of 2012 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC. The matter was informed to the higher authorities, but hone were able to identify the dead bodies. Based on the aforesaid allegations, B.S. City P.S. Case No. 123 of 2012 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and 2 other persons and after cognizance was taken, the: case was committed to the Court of Sessions where on 31.5.2013 charges were framed against the petitioner an id one another under Sections 302/34, 201/34, 1120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial proceeded and after examination of 11 charge-sheeted witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed on 28.11.2014. However, on 28.11.2014 itself, an application was preferred by the prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. calling for the original group of seram and blood D.N.A. Test report from S.F.S.L., Ranchi which was allowed on 4.12.2014 and the case was again fixed on 19.12.2014 for prosecution evidence. On 24.6.2015, another application was preferred by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for producing certain documents for evidence which was once again allowed vide order dated 9.7.2015. On 23.7.2015, PW 13 was examined and the material exhibits were exhibited. The prosecution evidence was closed on such prayer made by the prosecution on 29.7.2015. On 26.8.2015, the statements of the petitioner and other accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the next date was fixed for argument. On 8.1.2016, the case record of S.T. No. 151 of 2013 was sent to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, and on such transfer, the argument of the case was heard and after a conclusion of the hearing, the case was to be put for judgment on 1.6.2016. On 1.6.2016, however, the learned Sessions Judge while exercising suo motu powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. had directed for issuance of summons upon 2 more non-charge-sheeted witnesses namely, Binay Kumar Sinha and Shivendra Singh. 6. After the narration of the sequence of events, it is to be seen as to whether the learned Sessions Judge was within his right to exercise suo motu powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that calling for 2 non-charge-sheeted witnesses for their examination amounts to filling up of lacuna in the prosecution case. The impugned order dated 1.6.2016 reveals that one Binay Kumar Sinha, the then Officer'' Incharge of Marafari Police Station has identified the 4 dead bodies and had also recorded the confessional statement of the petitioner. It is also revealed that one Shivendra Singh @ Dagra who was in the remand home in connection with Marafari P.S. Case No. 69 of 2011 had also identified the 4 dead bodies. These persons were never the charge-sheeted witnesses which resulted in their non-examination by the prosecution. Now it is to be seen as to whether in terms of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., such circumstance could have dictated the learned trial Court in summoning the witnesses for their examination. In the case of " Mannan Shaikh and others v. State of West Bengal and another" reported in (2014) 13 SCC 59 , while considering the provision of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., it was held as follows : "12. The aim of every Court is to discover truth. Section 311 of the Code is one of many such provisions of the Code which strengthen the arms of a Court in its effort to ferret out the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. It is couched in very wide terms. It empowers the Court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as witness or recall and re-examine already examined witness. The second part of the section uses the word "shall". It says that the Court shall summon and examine or recall or re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. The words "essential to the just decision of the case" are the keywords. The Court must form an opinion that for the just decision of the case recall or re-examination of the witness is necessary. Since the power is wide its exercise has to be done with circumspection. It is trite that wider the power greater is the responsibility on the Courts which exercise it. The exercise of this power cannot be untrammelled and arbitrary but must be guided only by the object of arriving at a just decision of the case. It should not cause prejudice to the accused. It should not permit the prosecution to fill up the lacuna. The exercise of this power cannot be untrammelled and arbitrary but must be guided only by the object of arriving at a just decision of the case. It should not cause prejudice to the accused. It should not permit the prosecution to fill up the lacuna. Whether recall of a witness is for filling up of a lacuna or it is for just decision of a case depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In all cases it is likely to be argued that the prosecution is trying to fill up a lacuna because the line of demarcation is thin. It is for the court to consider all the circumstances and decide whether the prayer for recall is genuine." 7. The implications and purport of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is without doubt very wide, but the primary consideration in exercising such discretion is that it should not prejudice either the prosecution or the defence and shall not be used as a tool to fill up the lacuna in the case of either sides. Using the powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is only aimed at arriving at a just decision in a case if the evidence of a particular witness is essential for such purpose. No doubt, it is true that the facts of each particular case guide an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. or for that matter, the Court to suo motu exercise such powers. 8. The scenario as existing in the present case and as depicted above do suggest that Binay Kumar Sinha and Shivendra Singh @ Dagra are the persons whose evidence has a prime importance and neither their evidence will fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case nor will it cause prejudice to the defence. Their evidence seems to be absolutely essential in arriving at a just conclusion with respect to the guilt or otherwise of the accused persons. 9. The learned trial Court therefore had correctly applied the principles enunciated under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in summoning Binay Kumar Sinha and Shivendra Singh @ Dagra for their examination. Absence of any illegality as could be detected in the impugned order dated 1.6.2016 would lead this Court to dismiss the present application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.