CRM No. M-8655 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-8655 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Vijay Krishan Dhir ...Petitioner Versus Arun Kumar Kaura & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. impugning order, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby application filed by the complainant for leading additional evidence was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that application preferred by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been wrongly dismissed by the court below. According to him, it was necessary to produce the telephone set in the court in order to arrive at a just conclusion in the case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The complaint was lodged by the petitioner alleging that absurd and threatening calls were being received on his phone No.283004. On the basis of the complaint, the accused were summoned CRM No. M-8655 of 2009 2 to face trial under Sections 506 & 511 IPC. The complaint was instituted on 12th June, 2001. During the pendency of trial, an application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to produce the telephone set on which the threatening calls were allegedly received, in court. The said application was rejected on the ground that photographs of the telephone with displayed number were already on record and earlier also complainant had moved a similar application which was dismissed. The trial court, thus, observed that there was no merit in the application and rejected the same. It is evident that the trial court came to the conclusion that complainant had already led evidence in order to prove the allegations levelled in the complaint. The photograph of the telephone alongwith requisite display was on record. In my considered view, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that there was no ground for allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for producing the telephone set in the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. I am, thus, of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 21, 2009 'rajpal'