JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.04.2022 whereby application under section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Sahibganj. 2. The case has been filed on 26.12.2003 by the informant alleging therein that at about 6.00 a.m while the informant and the deceased were present in their house then the petitioner along with several other persons have attacked them and taken away the deceased with them. When they restrained to do so then the accused persons opened fire due to which the deceased has died. On the basis of the statement of the informant, Borio P.S. Case No.135 of 2003 has been lodged. 3. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petition dated 08.02.2022 was filed before the concerned court under section 311 of the Cr.P.C for recalling of the entire witnesses on the ground that police paper has not been supplied to the accused namely, Surya Narayan Hansda. He submits that there is statutory provision under section 207 Cr.P.C to provide police paper if the trial proceeds and in absence of police paper to be supplied to the accused Surya Narayan Hansda the trial proceeded and 11 witnesses have already been examined. He submits that within the stipulated period of time if this Court directs the court below to complete the exercise, the petitioner is ready to comply that. He further submits that beyond that the petitioner shall not pray for any adjournment. He further submits that similar was the provision under the old Act under section 162 which was considered by the Privy Council in the year 1947 and subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that judgment of the Privy Council in a case of “Purushottam Jethanand Versus The State of Kutch” reported in AIR 1954 SC 700 . Paragraph no.4 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “4. We do not think that, having regard to the terms of Section 162, Cr. P. C., the first of these arguments can be sustained the statutory right of the accused to be furnished with statements appears clearly to relate to a trial in respect of the very offence which was investigated and does not apply to a trial for a non-cognizable offence in respect of which there has been in fact no investigation. P. C., the first of these arguments can be sustained the statutory right of the accused to be furnished with statements appears clearly to relate to a trial in respect of the very offence which was investigated and does not apply to a trial for a non-cognizable offence in respect of which there has been in fact no investigation. The proviso to Section 162(1) which gives the right to obtain copies relates to "such inquiry or trial" i.e., to "enquiry or trial of any offence under investigation (under this chapter) at the time when the statement was made". Learned counsel relied on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in --- Shyamlal Sharma v. Emperor , air 1949 All 483 (A). But that was a case where there was in fact an investigation though without the authority of the Magistrate and it may well be, as stated by the learned Judges at page 490, that the illegality committed by the investigator, in not obtaining authority and yet proceeding to investigate, cannot be taken to deprive the accused of his statutory right. With reference to the alternative argument under this head, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the present case and on the facts, such investigation as has taken place on the complaint of the very appellant himself was in fact and in substance an investigation with reference to the very offence of extortion for which the appellant is under prosecution and that, therefore, on a principle analogous to that recognised in --- Shyamlal Sharma v. Emperor , air 1949 All 483 (A), above cited, the appellant was entitled to the protection offered by Section 162, Cr. P. C. There can be no doubt that the right which the accused has got of obtaining copies of the statement made by witnesses during investigation is a very valuable right and that the wholesale refusal to grant the same will be a serious irregularity which would vitiate the entire trial as held by the Privy Council in ---- Kotayya v. Emperor , air 1947 PC 67 at p. 69(B). We might accordingly have been inclined to examine the validity of the argument advanced as above stated, if in fact and in substance that investigation can be held to an investigation also for the offence for which the accused is put on trial. We might accordingly have been inclined to examine the validity of the argument advanced as above stated, if in fact and in substance that investigation can be held to an investigation also for the offence for which the accused is put on trial. It is, however, unnecessary to go into that legal proposition since the necessary foundation of fact is not made out in this case. What the learned counsel has relied upon as the foundation for this argument is that as a fact, by the time the offence of robbery based on the complaint of this very appellant on or about the 18th April, 1950, was under investigation, the police had also information of the commission of the offence of extortion by this appellant himself as appears from the two Panchanamas, Exs. B and A, dated the 18th and 19th April, 1950, respectively, which related to the recovery of the amount of Rs. 840/- by the villages of Rampur from this appellant and the handling over thereof to the police with a report. It is urged that these documents taken together and with the report which is indicated therein, constitute information to the police under Section 155, Cr. P. C. and that, therefore, the investigation from that date must be taken to be investigation in respect of both the offences. There is difficulty in accepting this view on the facts of this case. It is in evidence that the report indicated in Exs. A and B was sent to the Gadhsisa police station, while the report and investigation in respect of the information of robbery given by the appellant relate to the Mandvi police station. It is not made out in the evidence that the information lodged in respect of this case with the Gadhsisa police station was placed before the officer investigating the information relating to the robbery case. But even apart from this, there is a more substantial difficulty, viz., that the information as contained in Ex. B was not of the offence of extortion as regards any specified individuals and that the report itself does not appear to have made a complaint of the offence of extortion (see P. Ws. 1 and 2) and indeed neither Ex. A nor Ex. B gives any indication that the formation was furnished with a view to bring the offender to book. 1 and 2) and indeed neither Ex. A nor Ex. B gives any indication that the formation was furnished with a view to bring the offender to book. In these circumstances there is no foundation laid in the evidence for the larger question that has been raised in this case, viz., as to whether or not the statutory right under Section 162, Cr. P. C. can be held to apply to a case where there was in fact and in substance an investigation also in respect of a non-cognisable offence though the investigation purported to be confined to the cognisable offence.” 4. By way of relying on this judgment, he submits that there will be no doubt that the right which the accused has got of obtaining copies of the statement made by witnesses during investigation is a very valuable right and if the said right has not been complied, the entire proceeding is vitiated. 5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that belatedly the petition has been filed and the court has rightly rejected the petition. He submits that the learned court has considered the entire aspect of the matter including the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned A.P.P and thereafter passed the reasoned order and on the ground the matter is pending since the last 20 years and there is no illegality in the impugned order. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has relied in the case of 'Sanjeev Singh v. State of Jharkhand' [Cr.M.P. No. 27/2020 dated 24.02.2022 order dated 24.3.2022] 6. The Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties at length and also gone through the materials on record. It appears that the police papers have not been supplied to the accused namely, Surya Narayan Hansda which is the statutory provision under section 207 Cr.P.C. Section 311 Cr.P.C can be exercised at any stge of enquiry or trial proceeded and it is settled principle that the trial or enquiry does not primarily delay the pronouncement of judgment or passing of the order. In the case in hand argument has not been completed as yet. In the case in hand argument has not been completed as yet. The court is required to look into as to whether to fill up any lacuna the petition is filed or any delaying tactic is adopted by the accused or not. 7. Admittedly, in the case in hand the police papers have not been supplied to the accused namely, Surya Narayan Hansda.Now the aim of every court is to discover the truth. Section 311 Cr.PC is one of the many such provisions which strengthen the arms of the court in its efforts to unearth the truth by the procedure sanctioned by law and at the same time the discretion under section 311 Cr.P.C has to be exercised obviously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. 8. In the interest of justice and to avoid to take further plea after completion of the trial by the accused that this has not been done in the trial and for that the entire trial is vitiated, and to avoid that situation, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner be provided an opportunity of examining the witnesses within a stipulated time period. 9. Accordingly, the trial court shall recall the witnesses within a week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the witnesses shall be examined by the accused namely, Surya Narayan Hansda on the day-to-day basis. The police papers shall be supplied forthwith and the entire exercise shall be completed within three weeks. 10. It is made clear that if the accused namely, Surya Narayan Hansda further tries to delay the case or files any belatedly petition that shall be dealt by the trial court in accordance with law. The further time for cross-examination will not be provided to the accused namely Surya Narayan Hansda. 11. The impugned order dated 30.04.2022 passed in S.T.No. 123(B) of 2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge at Sahebganj is hereby modified to the above extent only. 12. Cr.M.P.No.1406 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.