Criminal Revision No.1420 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1420 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.12.2009. Karamjit ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. The prosecution had filed a plea under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the summoning of two witnesses (ASI Jasvir Singh and Assistant Incharge, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Bihar). The presence of the former was required to prove the FIR; whereas the testimony of the latter was required to prove the forged character of the Detail Marks Card and other documentation purporting to have been issued by the Magadh University. The learned Trial Magistrate allowed the former part of the request. It is presently common ground that the statement of ASI Jasvir Singh already stands recorded. The petitioner-accused has filed the present petition to challenge the other part of the request which was allowed by the learned Trial Magistrate. The only plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the allowance of the request allows the prosecution to fill up the lacuna which has appeared in the prosecution presentation. The further averment is that the examination of Assistant Incharge, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya Criminal Revision No.1420 of 2009 -2- **** would be meaningless as no statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the aforesaid witness came to be recorded. It is apparent from the prosecution allegation that the record- based testimony of Assistant Incharge, Magadh University, Bodh Gayal would be the mainstay of the prosecution allegation. The fact that no statement of his came to be recorded by the Police under Section 161 CR.P.C. could be assailed by the petitioner at the trial and it will be for the learned Trial Court to examine the effect thereof. It cannot be said, with any justification, that the endeavour made by the prosecution is to fill up the lacuna particularly when the prosecution case had not concluded by the time the plea under Section 311 Cr.P.C. came to be filed. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, learned counsel for the petitioner has a feeling that allowance of the plea may enable the prosecution to delay disposal of the trial for an indefinite period, particularly when the trial has started in the year 2003. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand dismissed. However, the prosecution shall have one month time (with effect from the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court) within which time it will produce Assistant Incharge, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. It will be open to the prosecution to avail of any number of adjournments within that one month period to be able to produce that witness. Ofcourse, the prosecution shall be entitled to obtain the assistance of the Court in the form of issuance of summons etc. to obtain the presence of witness aforementioned. Disposed of accordingly. December 16, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE