IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1502 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 03.08.2009 Sarabjit Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Regional Unit), Ludhiana ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the application preferred by the prosecution for permission to place and prove on record the documents which have been inadvertently left out while filing the complaint stands allowed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna which has crept in, to the prejudice of the accused. He submits that the application preferred by the prosecution does not mention the provisions under which it has been filed. He further submits that the said application has been moved after examination of the Investigating Officer and two material witnesses and, therefore, at this stage permission to the prosecution to place on record the documents, namely, the Intelligence report dated 20.4.2007 and receipt issued from Central Bureau Control Laboratory, New Delhi, for deposit of sample bearing Crl.Rev.No.1502 of 2009 -2- receipt No.43 dated 24.4.2007 could not be allowed. He submits that the petitioner has been supplied the copy of the complaint and the documents attached thereto under Section 207/208/209 Cr.P.C. but the above-referred documents were never supplied to the petitioner although the same finds mention in the complaint. He submits that at this stage by allowing the said documents to be placed on record, the interest of the petitioner would be prejudiced. He, on this basis, prays for setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Ludhiana. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Parsad vs. The Narcotic Cell through its Officer- in charge, Delhi, 1999 (3) RCR (Crl.) 440. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Court to summon any person as a witness or recall and re- examine any such person even if evidence of both the sides stands closed. The primary purpose of this Section is the interest of justice and the power, therefore, can be exercised at any stage of the trial depending upon the demand of the case. There can be no dispute that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives overwhelming powers to the Criminal Court to exercise its jurisdiction under this Section where the Court is dictated by exigency of the situation and fair-play and whether the requirement of justice demands to come to a correct conclusion and find out the truth. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the documents which are being sought to be placed on record and proved as per law are mentioned and referred to in the complaint itself and even the witnesses have been cited to Crl.Rev.No.1502 of 2009 -3- prove those documents. The documents sought to be placed/proved on record, have been inadvertently left out i.e. (1) the intelligence report dated 20.4.2007 and (2) the receipt issued from Central Bureau Control Laboratory, New Delhi for deposit of sample bearing receipt No.43 dated 24.4.2007. Production of these documents and proving the same in accordance with law would not amount to filling up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It could at best be said to be an over-sight in management of the prosecution and an inadvertant mistake on the part of the prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad's case(supra) has dealt with this issue and has permitted the prosecution to produce such evidence which would fulfill the requirement of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that being exigencies of the situation, fair-play and good sense and the requirement of justice which command production of such documents which are essential for the just decision of the case. The present case fulfills the requirement of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Ludhiana cannot be faulted with and, thus, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court while allowing the application of the prosecution for permission to place on record the documents and prove the same as per law. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. August 03, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE