Anshul Garg @ Anshu Garg vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (''Cr.P.C.'' for short) challenging the order dated 5.7.2013 (Annexure P-6) whereby application moved by the complainant to lead additional evidence was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in allowing respondent No. 2 to lead additional evidence. The writing now sought to be proved on record was in the knowledge of the complainant and should have been proved by the complainant when he appeared in the witness box. Complainant could not be allowed to fill up the lacuna in his case by resorting to Section 311 Cr.P.C.

Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.

Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and reexamine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

Thus, as per the above provision, the Trial Court has ample power to allow production of additional evidence, if it is necessary for the just decision of the case.

Learned Trial Court, while allowing the application, has held as under:-

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. Having considered the said rival contentions, I am of the considered opinion that the application is liable to be allowed as it help court in reaching right decision as to whether cheque was issued by accused in discharge of legal liability towards complainant u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. vast powers have been given to the court to allow a party to lead the evidence at any stage of the proceedings in case the court finds that the evidence which remained to be led is essential for the just decision of the case. The primary aim and object of this section is to do justice between the parties. If the court comes to conclusion that the production of such evidence which has been sought to be produced taking recourse to section 311 Cr.P.C. would enable the court to come to a correct finding, it would be just and reasonable to permit the court to lead the evidence. The object underlying section 311 of Cr.P.C. is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record on leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential for the just decision of the case. For this view of mine I am relying upon case cited as:

Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, '' wherein it has been held that power u/s 311 CrPC to bring on record evidence and material can be exercised even after close of prosecution evidence and defence evidence.

Power u/s 311 of CrPC is plenary to call or recall any witness at any stage of the case. It cannot be whittled down merely on the ground that the prosecution discovered latches on its part only when the same were highlighted at a later stage. I agree with the contention of counsel for the complainant that the lacuna in the case of the complainant is to be differentiated from the fall out of an oversight committed by the complainant for which the other party can be compensated. Hence in view of reasons mentioned herein before and in view of the law laid down as discussed above, the application stands allowed subject to depositing cost of Rs. 800/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Mansa. Now to come up on 29.07.2013 for CWs. List of witnesses, PF and DM be furnished. Dasti summons be taken. Receipt of cost be also furnished on the date fixed.

The reasons given by the Trial Court, while allowing the application, moved by the complainant u/s 311 Cr.P.C., are sound reasons. The Trial Court has found that the writing dated 12.5.2010 would help the Court in deciding the dispute between the parties in just and fair manner. Further, petitioner will have the opportunity to rebut the said document.

Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.