Criminal Revision No.2361 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2361 of 2007 Date of Order: 30.01.2009 Daljeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, directing the prosecution to produce the witnesses who have remained un-examined. Counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer in the present petition to an argument that before proceeding to pass the impugned order, the learned trial court has not granted an opportunity of hearing before proceeding to exercise its suo-motu powers, under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). It is submitted that arguments, in the main case were heard on 19.11.2007 and the case was thereafter adjourned to 22.11.2007 and 23.11.2007 for final orders. Instead of pronouncing orders, the trial Court passed an order directing the prosecution to examine the witnesses who remained unexamined. It is submitted that before proceeding to pass the impugned order, the trial court failed to call upon or grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, rendering the impugned order void Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that a court has Criminal Revision No.2361 of 2007 -2- plenary jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 311 of the Code. The trial Court has recorded its satisfaction in terms of Section 311 of the Code, the impugned order be upheld and the present petition be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The grant of an opportunity of hearing is the cornerstone of any adjudicatory process and denial thereof an anathema to the rule of law. Justice and fairness render imperative that before proceeding to pass an order under Section 311 of the Code an opportunity, should be granted to the accused to urge that the court desist from exercising its suo motu powers under Section 311 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned trial court did not grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (the accused) thus rendering the impugned order void. It requires mention that grant of an opportunity, to the prosecution to lead additional evidence may in a giving situation enable the prosecution to fill lacunae in its evidence and in such a situation the accused may legitimately urge that the court desist from exercising its powers under Section 311 of the Code. In view of error of jurisdiction, by the learned trial court, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 23.11.2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh after grant of an opportunity to the petitioner to raise all such objections as may be available to him, in accordance with law. The parties are directed to present before the trial Court on 09.03.2009. January 30, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE