CRM NO.M-25227 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB OF HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM NO.M-25227 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 28.11.2011 Gurnam Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present :Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the accused. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J (ORAL). Prayer in this petition is for quashing of order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure P-2) vide which the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for summoning Chanan Singh son of Kartar Singh as prosecution witness has been dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that on the statement made by the petitioner in the trial Court as prosecution witness (PW-9) where he had specifically stated that on 27.06.2007 at about 7:00 P.M. he along with Chanan Singh were going on motorcycle TVS and were passing infront of the house of Balkaran Singh, the petitioner was attacked. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning Chanan Singh as a prosecution witness. He contends that inadvertently in the FIR name of Chanan Singh was missed by the petitioner and the prosecution also during its investigation did not record his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He contends that for CRM NO.M-25227 OF 2010 -2- inadvertently mistake, the case of the prosecution should not be adversely affected and it would not amount to injustice qua the accused as has been held by the trial Court while dismissing the application under Section 313 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner. He accordingly, prays for setting aside the order by allowing the present petition. On the other hand, counsel for the accused submits that the introduction of the name of Chanan Singh is an after thought and the same cannot be permitted at this belated stage especially when name of Chanan Singh is neither in the FIR nor his name has been mentioned in the list of prosecution witnesses nor was his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating agency and therefore at this stage his name should not be introduced as an eye witness. The prosecution is trying to give a new dimention to the case, which would not be permissible and accordingly prays for dismissal of the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. It is not disputed that in FIR No.105 dated 28.06.2007, which was registered on a statement made by the petitioner-Gurnam Singh complainant. There is no mentioning of the petitioner being accompanied by Chanan Singh. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-4) would show that what has been stated therein is that on 27.06.2007 at about 7:00 P.M. in the evening when he was passing in front of the house of Balkaran Singh, who was standing in front of the door with double barrel gun, then he stopped the motorcycle of the complainant and thereafter the offence was committed by the accused. Although the supplementary statement was given by the petitioner on 28.06.2007 which is the same day when the FIR was lodged wherein name of Chanan Singh was mentioned. Prosecution did not record statement of Chanan Singh under Section 161 CRM NO.M-25227 OF 2010 -3- Cr.P.C. nor was his name mentioned as prosecution witness when challan was submitted in Court. In the light of the facts and circumstances of this case it is apparent that effort has been made by the prosecution to bring in an eye witness so that the case of the prosecution could be further strengthened, which would not be permissible at this belated stage especially when there are ample reasons assigned by the trial Court for not accepting application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The reasons so assigned by the trial Court are quite justified and based on the facts and circumstances of the present case, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. 28.11.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE