JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal J.: -The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby applications filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C have been accepted. The petitioner herein is an accused in FIR No.321 dated 14.10.2005 registered under Sections 302/34/109/115/120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. During the course of trial, the prosecution filed three applications for permission to lead additional evidence of four witnesses who could not be entered into list of witnesses at the time of filing of challan, to produce new witnesses against the witnesses already named in the challan and third one for tendering reports of Forensic Science Laboratory. All the three applications were disposed of by the learned Court by a common order accepting all of them. The petitioner is aggrieved only against the order passed in application for permission to produce four additional witnesses. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application could not be allowed for the simple reason that additional report filed by the prosecution after conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C without the permission of the Court was not permitted to be placed on record and filing of the application for permission to examine four additional witnesses is nothing else but to circumvent the order passed rejecting the additional report filed. In furtherance to this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the evidence which was collected during further investigation which is sought to be produced now in the garb of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 3. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Court below shows that the prayer of the prosecution for examination of four additional witnesses has been considered thread bare in paras 23 to 28 of the impugned order wherein it is specifically recorded that the statements of the witnesses which are sought to be produced in evidence were recorded before the presentation of challan originally and it is not that their evidence was collected during further investigation. The Court was satisfied that the learned Court below was right in forming an opinion that the additional evidence which is sought to be led is not created after filing of the challan rather the same was in existence prior thereto but due to inadvertence/ oversight, the same could not be mentioned in the challan. The Court was satisfied that the learned Court below was right in forming an opinion that the additional evidence which is sought to be led is not created after filing of the challan rather the same was in existence prior thereto but due to inadvertence/ oversight, the same could not be mentioned in the challan. If that is so, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that an additional evidence could not be permitted to be led for the reason that the same was collected in further investigation is not borne out from the record. For the reason mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. --------------------