CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mehar Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 30 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 P&H CK 0770

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabina, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311, 482
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-22943 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 372 words

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (''Cr.P.C. for short) challenging the order dated 18.2.2013 whereby application moved by the prosecution u/s 311 Cr.P.C. dated 23.2.2012 (Annexure P-2) was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in allowing the application moved by the prosecution u/s 311 Cr.P.C. Prosecution could not be allowed to fill up the lacuna in its case by resorting to Section 311 Cr.P.C.

2.

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

311.

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 re-examine 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.

3.

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.

4.

In the present case, prosecution by way of additional evidence wants to prove on record application dated 8.7.2009 moved by the complainant against the accused to Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana. Photocopy of the said application was already on record. However, the original complaint was not filed by the prosecution with the challan. Since the photocopy of the complaint was already on record, the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the said document could not be said to be fabricated at a later stage and could be allowed to be led in the evidence. It has also been noticed by the Trial Court while allowing the application that prosecution evidence was still incomplete. Cross-examination of the material witnesses was still to be concluded. Accused will have the opportunity to substantiate their claim that complaint is a forged document. The reasons given by the Trial Court, while allowing the application, moved by the prosecution u/s 311 Cr.P.C., are sound reasons.

5.

No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.