Madanjit Singh vs Baljit Singh

R.L. Anand, J.

Present is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has been directed against the order dated 20.8.1996 passed by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, who dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant Madanjit Singh when he wanted to place on record a DDR which was recorded in Police Station Kotwali, Sangrur at the instance of Smt. Nasib Kaur respondent No. 2. The prayer is further that the complainant may be allowed to prove that DDR from which it is prima facie established that the witnesses relied upon by the complainant were present at the spot and that the occurrence has also taken place in the manner as stated by the complainant. This request of the petitioner was opposed by the accused and vide impugned order the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was declined with the following order :

"After hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that copy of the DDR No. 15 dated 17.3.1985 of Police Station Sangrur, which now has been sought to be relied upon by the applicant is not such a document which can be allowed to be tendered into evidence or which can be held to be useful and helpful to the Court or which may appear to be essential for just decision of the case. The power of the Court under Section 311 Cr.PC relates to summon material witness or examine persons present in Court. If his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case and said power does not relate to tendering of documents or providing the documents as has been sought to be done by the complainant by filing the present complaint. The Daily Diary Report copy of which is being sought to be produced on the record by the complainant as per version of the complainant in the application under consideration itself is false. So there is great deal of force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that now a false document will help the Court to arrive at just decision of the case. Then in this case first date for precharge evidence after appearance of all accused was fixed for 10.6.95. In all the complainant to adduce his precharge evidence availed 17 opportunities actually. It was only on 8.6.88 that the complainant closed his precharge evidence at his own. This court heard most of the arguments addressed on both the sides and it was only on 8.7.86 that when case was fixed for arguments, for the purpose of framing the charges, the complainant filed the application under consideration. During the long journey of about 3 years it never occurred to the complainant to produce the copy of the DDR which now he wants to produce as additional evidence. A perusal of the recourse show that earlier on 22.12.1986 complainant filed application under Section 311 Cr.PC for permission to produce copy of khasra girdawari and jamabandi in precharge evidence. Further perusal of records shows that thereafter on 5.1.87 complainant filed another application under Section 311 Cr.PC for permission to resummon Dr. Ram Kumar and for getting his xray report. The present application is third application under Section 311 Cr.PC and prima facie appears to have been filed to prolong and protract the litigation. In the applications filed by him earlier, he never mentioned about the present report. It has not been known by the complainant as to on which date he obtained the copy of the DDR which he now wants to produce on the record. So it seems that document in question was in possession of the complainant long before he filed the application under consideration and shows that in fact complainant never wanted to rely upon the said document because as per his own version, daily diary report lodged by Nasib Kaur was false. In the judgment in the case of Dalip Singh v. State (supra) the learned prosecutor had moved application for additional evidence at the stage when case was fixed for arguments and on these facts Hon''ble High Court was pleased to hold that there is no ground for allowing additional evidence as prosecution has already availed of sufficient opportunity to lead evidence as Public Prosecutor voluntarily closed his evidence. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the fact of this case as well. No doubt this case is not fixed for final arguments on the merits of the case because case is still at the stage of consideration whether accused can be chargesheeted on the basis of evidence adduced but for the purposes of framing charge, complainant has voluntarily closed his evidence."

I have heard Shri Baldev Singh Sr. Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sh. G.S. Punia, Advocate for respondent and with their assistance I have gone through the impugned order.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued with vehemence and in his ability by stating that the document sought to be relied upon by the petitioner is nothing but a document of the accused himself who lodged the report in the police station and the nature and the contents of the document are such which are very vital for the just decision of the case and Section 311 Cr.PC gives vide powers to this Court to pass such appropriate orders as considered necessary for the just and proper decision of the trial. The submission of the petitioner has been opposed by Shri G.S. Punia, Advocate for the respondents who has relied upon an authority reported as 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports'' V.P. Gureja v. Jagdish Chander wherein it was held that the order declining the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory order in nature and revision is not maintainable. Only petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is maintainable but in such proceedings these powers should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is liable to be dismissed because the petitioner cannot be allowed to take the advantage by filling the lacunas of the case. In para No. 12 of the complaint it has been specifically alleged by the complainant himself that the accused party went to Police Station Kotwali Sangrur and lodged a report. On the same day, the complainant also went to the Police Station and it cannot be believed that the complainant did not know that the opposite party had earlier lodged his report in the police station. Inspite of the fact that it was to the knowledge of the complainant about lodging the report he did not take any step at any stage of the proceedings to produce that document. The lacunas of the criminal case cannot be allowed to be filled under the garb of Section 482 Cr.PC. In this view of the matter, I do not see any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. However, directions are given to the trial Court to expedite the proceedings as the complaint was filed as back as in the year 1985.