Criminal Misc. No. M- 2243 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 2243 of 2011 Date of decision:- 27.1.2011 Som Nath ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of order dated 02.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar, vide which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been allowed for placing on record certain documents. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed to place on record documents like personal bonds, surety bonds, grounds of arrest memos of accused Som Nath son of Hans Raj, Sunil Kukar @ Rinku son of Som Nath, Surinder Kumar @ Kaka son of Som Nath, Raj Rani wife of Amar Nath, Amar Nath son of Hans Raj and Madhu Bala wife of late Ashwani Kumar daughter of Amar Nath, all residents of Malout on the judicial file/challan and to recall and re- examine ASI Ajaib Singh of Police Station City, Malout to prove the aforesaid documents and to allow to place statements of complainant Darshna Devi, her son Ashok Kumar, Ruldu Singh, all residents of Virk Kalan and Subhash Chander @ Toni resident of Malout recorded during the enquiry proceedings on the Criminal Misc. No. M- 2243 of 2011 -2- judicial file/challan. The abovesaid documents were omitted to place on judicial file/challan at the time of presentation of the challan. The inquiry was conducted by SHO/SI Darshan Singh. The prosecution took the stand that no prejudice could be caused to the accused if ASI Ajaib Singh is cross-examined on the above mentioned documents. Mr. Amit Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that by allowing the application an attempt was made to fill in the lacunas in the case of prosecution. The prosecution has taken 26 adjournments after presentation of the challan, for examination of the prosecution witnesses. At this stage an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling and re-examination of ASI Ajaib Singh to prove the documents like personal bonds, surety bonds will prejudice the right of the accused. No such documents have been prepared by ASI. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance of the Supreme Court judgment in case Iddar and others versus Aabida 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 909 to contend that it was mandatory for the Court to record a finding that the evidence was essential to the just decision of the case. In the present case no such finding has been recorded. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file carefully. At this stage, the evidence of the prosecution is going on and no prejudice will be caused to the accused as they have a right to cross-examine the witness in this case. The petition is dismissed. However, personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is exempted subject to the following conditions:- (i) petitioner shall be represented through counsel; (ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) shall not dispute his identity as an accused: (iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in his absence but in the presence of his Criminal Misc. No. M- 2243 of 2011 -3- counsel; (v) shall appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court; and (vi) any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose. January 27, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE