Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 859 (PNJ)

Rajwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

2004-08-09

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Petitioner (accused) has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 1.6.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which he has granted permission to examine five witnesses by the prosecution whose names are not include in the list of witnesses submitted by it. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and beyond the scope of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), empowering the Court to allow additional evidence at any stage of the trial. He submits that in the instant case, the prosecution has not examined a single witness and at the initial stage, the aforesaid application was moved for permitting the prosecution to examine five witnesses, who were not named in the list of witnesses. The learned counsel further submits that ordinarily under Section 311 of the Code, the Court grants permission to examine any witness if it frames an opinion that calling of the said witness is essential for the just decision of the case and such an opinion can only be framed after considering the evidence already led by the prosecution. Therefore, in the instant case, there was no material before the Court to frame the opinion that examination of the five named witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case. During the course of arguments, I have been informed that out of the five witnesses, the examination-in-chief of three witnesses has been recorded by the trial Court. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same at this stage when examination-in-chief of three witnesses has already been recorded, particularly when the petitioner will have an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses on all aspects of the matter. Even otherwise, ample power has been given to the trial Court under Section 311 of the Code to permit the prosecution to examine any witness though he is not named in the list of witnesses. Once the trial Court has exercised its discretion and found that examination of the five witnesses is essential for the just decision of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said discretion in the inherent powers of this Court. Once the trial Court has exercised its discretion and found that examination of the five witnesses is essential for the just decision of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said discretion in the inherent powers of this Court. Hence, criminal revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.