IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.106 of 2010. Date of decision:23.7.2010 State of H.P. … …Petitioner Versus Ramesh Chand & Another … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.Partap Singh, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the State against the order passed by the learned Fast Track Court, allowing the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioners Ramesh Chand and Bhima Devi. 2. Both the respondents herein were facing trial under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with the Police Station Solan. Learned Fast Track Court set aside the judgment 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 and sentence imposed upon the respondents and issued following directions:- “17. In view of foregoing discussion the application to recall the complainant PW8, PW3 Dr.J.P. Kaushik and PW5 Dr.P.D. Sharma and to prove the employment record of the complainant regarding obtaining employment under handicapped quota is allowed. Consequently the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicants is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Ld.trial court with the following directions:- 1. The trial court shall summon PW3 Dr.J.P.Kaushik, PW5 Dr.P.D. Sharma and complainant Smt.Nisha Sharma for their further cross examination on behalf of accused. 2. The evidence already on record shall remain a part of evidence in the case and after further cross-examination of the aforesaid witness the prosecution shall be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence if it wanted to do so. 3. Thereafter the accused/applicant shall be called upon to enter their defence if the prosecution examined any other witness as observed in point No.2 above. 4. After recording such evidence produced by the applicant/appellants the Ld.trial Judge shall dispose of a case afresh in accordance with law being uninfluenced by any findings or observations made by the court.” 3 3. The Court passed the order after detailed consideration of the law. The case of the petitioners was that they had obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act and material evidence to show that the entire case as urged by the prosecution against them could not be sustained. In these circumstances, some of the witnesses, as mentioned in the application, are required to be recalled. 4. The entire controversy related to the nature of the injury, as alleged, as the case made out, was that the injury suffered by the complainant was there from her childhood and she had also obtained a certificate from the Government certifying that the complainant was a handicapped person and consequent thereupon she got employment as Gram Sewika. 5. Learned appellate Court rejected the argument of the State that the petitioners have tried to fill in lacunae in the evidence. 6. I am not expressing anything on the merits of the case. Surely if the injury is an old one which has been used for getting employment, it may make a vital difference to the case. 7. The facts as pleaded by the petitioners that information come into their possession under the Right to Information Act. If these facts are established, there is no question of filling in any lacunae in the evidence. 4 The law on this aspect is now well settled. (See: Mohan Lal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India, 1991 Supp.(1) SCC 271 and the judgment of this Court in Dheeraj Singh and Others vs. M/s.Suriti Enterprises and connected matters, Cr.M.M.O. No.35 of 2010, decided on 29.6.2010.). There is, thus, no merit in this petition which is dismissed. July 23, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.