Dalip Singh alias Daljit Singh vs State of Punjab

Surinder Singh, J.

During the pendency of a case under section 409, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners the prosecution case was closed on November 18, 1982 and case fixed for arguments on June, 3, 1983. On the latter date the A.P.P. filed an application under section 311, Code of Procedure, praying that eight more witnesses may be summoned for being examined in support of the prosecution version. The learned trying Magistrate rejected the application on August 9, 1983 by observing that two of these witnesses had already been examined, while the fourth was not even cited as a witness. In regard to the remaining four witnesses, the Court observed that the prosecution had been given a number of opportunities for producing these witnesses on various dates, i.e., August 11, 1982, September 7, 1982, October 12, 1982, November 9, 1982 and November 18, 1982. On the last mentioned date i.e., November 18, 1982, the APP voluntarily closed the case of the prosecution. In view of these circumstances, the trial Court felt that there was no justification for summoning all the eight witnesses, as prayed on behalf of the prosecution.

The respondent State filed a Revision Petition which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, as per the impugned judgment, dated January 24, 1984.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has made two submissions in the Revision Petition. In the first place, it is contended that the order refusing to summon additional evidence was an interlocutory order and no Revision against the said order was competent before the Additional Sessions Judge. The counsel placed reliance upon Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1979 Chandigarh Law Reporter 253. The said authority is directly on the point in issue and in the absence of any other authority to the contrary, the same must be accepted. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the concession available under section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, for the grant of permission to lead additional evidence ought not to have been allowed in favour of the prosecution when numerous opportunities had already been granted to it for leading evidence. In fact, as already noticed, the APP had himself closed the case for prosecution by making a statement to this effect. In this behalf, the learned counsel placed reliance upon Bachan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1981 Chandigarh Law Reporter 369. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while discussing this aspect, made the following observations in the impugned judgment :

"If the APP has been negligent in the discharge of his duties or by oversight could not appreciate the implications of his giving up the PWS or closing the evidence that does not mean that the accused should be let off or given the benefit of the same."

The above observations are merely conjectural and have no basis at all. In the same context, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrongly swayed in allowing the application for additional evidence for the reason advanced by the APP that nonexamination of the witness`could destroy the case of prosecution which is otherwise wellfounded on documentary and oral evidence''. No such conclusion could have been legally drawn by the Court even before the completion of the trial of the case. It is, thus, obvious that the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted illegally and beyond his jurisdiction to permit production of additional evidence of the prosecution, in the circumstances noticed above.

The result is that this Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated, January 24, 1984 is set aside, while that of the trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dasuya, is restored. The Court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law.

Revision allowed.