Crl.Misc.No.M-15791 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-15791 of 2010. Decided on: May 27, 2010. Ram Nath .. Petitioner VERSUS Niti Aggarwal and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 15.04.2010, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution has been dismissed by the trial Court. The case of the prosecution is that Niti Aggarwal had called the deceased Aditya from Pilibhit to Gurgaon in order to eliminate him. After the statement of PW Pankaj, the prosecution filed an application for production of evidence of official of Vodafone and Essar Mobile Service Limited, C-48, Okhala, Industrial Area, . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-15791 of 2010 Phase-II, New Delhi, along with record pertaining to the telephone with MCC Code 40411, for the period of July 2007, claiming that the said record will prove that Niti Aggarwal accused had called the deceased Aditya and that the three calls made from Mobile No.9837008585 reflected at Sr. Nos.499, 500, & 501, would indicate the location of the deceased at the time when last phone call was received by him. As the last three calls were received from mobile phone MCC Code No.40411 belonging to Vodafone Cellular Services, as such, the examination of concerned official of Vodafone Essar Mobile Limited would be necessary for the just decision of the case. The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that in earlier application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., no such request was made for summoning the said witness and that during investigation no such date or material was collected by the prosecution agency, as such, there is no justification for allowing the application for summoning additional witnesses. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the last call received by the deceased was from Niti Aggarwal and that the last calls will reflect the location of the deceased on the highway of Pilibhit to Gurgaon which would be necessary to be determined and would enable the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. Main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has not made any attempt to consider that the calling of the additional witness would facilitate to locate the position of the deceased when he received last call and the said fact is . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-15791 of 2010 necessary to be brought on the record for just decision of the case. No opinion can be formed by this Court, at this stage, whether summoning of Additional witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is necessary for just decision of the case or that it is a mere devise to delay the proceedings or to fill-in the lacunae as the other evidence is not before this Court. It is only the trial Court which can, in context to the other evidence already produced by prosecution, arrive at a conclusion whether the summoning of officials of Vodafone and Essar Mobile Services Limited, would be, in the interest of justice, or necessary for the just decision of the case. Without expression of any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to reconsider whether the examination of the witnesses from Vodafone and Essar Mobile Service Limited is necessary for arriving at just conclusion in the particular circumstances of the case or it will tantamount to mere filling-in the lacunae or will unnecessarily delay the trial. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in context to the above said observations and the objective and scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 15.04.2010, is set aside, in the interest, of justice. It is made clear that it will be open to the trial Court to either allow the application or dismiss the same on the basis of . . . 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-15791 of 2010 subjective satisfaction if the summoning of the additional witness is necessary for the just decision of the case. The petition is disposed of in limine to avoid any delay in the trial. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 27, 2010. rka . . . 4