Criminal Revision No. 475 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 20, 2008 Manohar Singh ......... Petitioner versus Gurdatar Singh .......... Respondents 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Shri G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 20.12.2007 whereby learned trial Court has permitted the complainant to examine additional witnesses i.e., witnesses whose names were not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint. A private complaint has been filed by Gurdatar Singh respondent for offences under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 447, 148, 149, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Along with the complaint, the complainant has given a list of witnesses. However, it was also pointed out that supplementary list of witnesses shall be filed later on. During the course of pre-charge evidence, Criminal Revision No. 475 of 2008 [2] the complainant filed an application to examine additional witnesses which was resisted by the petitioner on the ground of non disclosure of names of the said witnesses in the complaint and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to examine the said witnesses. It is contended that powers under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised only in rare cases and only on establishing on the basis of evidence recorded that the examination of additional witnesses is essential. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The evidence which is being recorded is of pre-charge stage, meaning thereby that the accused shall have a right to test the veracity of the evidence so produced and make a grievance at the stage of framing of charge as well. The requirement of furnishing of list of witnesses along with the complaint is a directory provision so as to comply with the provisions of natural justice. Such provisions are to advance the cause of justice and the procedural aspect cannot be permitted to be raised so as to deny the production of evidence which may be just and necessary for the just decision of the case. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. February 20, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE