Crl. Rev. No.1765 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1765 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.06.2010 Gurdev Cycle Industries ....Petitioner Versus Gurparkar Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition challenging the Order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby, the application filed by the respondent for leading additional evidence was accepted. As per the application filed for leading additional evidence and as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, the complainant filed two complaints titled as `Gurparkar Singh versus Gurdev Cycles & Gurparkar versus Darshan Singh.' However, due to oversight, the postal receipt of the notice issued to the accused was attached in the complaint titled as `Gurparkar Singh vs. Darshan Singh' and the postal receipt of the notice sent to the accused in that complaint has been attached in the present complaint. Now, the complainant wants to Crl. Rev. No.1765 of 2010 2 prove the receipt of the notice issued to the accused by summoning the file of the complaint titled as `Gurparkar Singh vs. Darshan Singh and the complainant has obtained the certified copy of that receipt. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, while relying on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case titled as Harnam Singh vs. M/s Bhushan Metallics Ltd. reported in 2007(1) RCR(Criminal) 992 stated that the Court is required to keep in mind the well known principle of law that the order should not operate as a rebuttal of the case set up by defence after prosecution case had been closed. Since in the present case, the prosecution evidence had been closed and the complainant wanted to produce the evidence only after the evidence led by the petitioner, the permission to allow him to lead evidence at this stage is nothing but arbitrary. The said judgment does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 1982(2) CLR 318 has specifically observed that question of permitting further evidence by the Court whether after the entire evidence of prosecution and defence is over will depend upon facts of each case. It cannot be laid down that in no case can additional witnesses be called by the Judge at the suggestion of the prosecution before the close of the trial of the case where the defence has been closed or the arguments have been heard. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C gives wide discretion to Court to summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance or to recall or to re-examine the person already examined at any stage of inquiry and trial. The only requirement is that it should be necessary for a just decision and not intended to give any unfair advantage to the rival side. It should also not be misused to fulfil a lacuna. In Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another 1991(3) RCR (Crl.) 182, Hon'ble the Crl. Rev. No.1765 of 2010 3 Supreme Court while expressing the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C observed thus :- “ The very usage of the words such as `any Court', `at any stage' or `or any inquiry, trial or other proceedings', `any person' and `any such person' clearly spells out that this section is expressed in the widest possible terms and does not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary power should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow for any discretion but it binds and compels the Court to take any of the aforementioned two steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case.” In view of the fact that due to bona fide mistake, the postal receipt of another case was produced in the present case, the permission to lead additional evidence to produce the correct receipt was granted. It is not denied that the present complaint titled as `Gurparkar Singh vs. Gurdev Sycle Industries' has been filed on 29.08.2003 and the other complaint titled as `Gurparkar Singh vs. Darshan Singh' was also instituted on 29.08.2003. The fact that by mistake the postal receipt of the notice issued to the accused got interchanged in the facts of the present case, cannot be overruled. The present case is a case which appears to be peculiar. The facts have already been noticed in the first para of the Order. It is the mandatory obligation of the Court to ensure that the truth is ascertained in every case. Due to sheer bonafide mistake, the wrong postal receipt was placed on record. The same is necessary for arriving at a just decision. It would be highly unfair and unjust, if the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C is not exercised to correct the mistake and allow the complainant to produce Crl. Rev. No.1765 of 2010 4 the additional evidence which is necessary for correct decision. Thus, no fault can be found with the Order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana which is in accordance with law. The Crl. Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 29.06.2010 JUDGE gurpreet