Crl. Misc. No.M-37383 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-37383 of 2011. Date of decision: December 12, 2011. Rajwinder Singh alias Raju .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia , Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30.11.2011, by virtue of which, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., filed by the prosecution agency to summon the clerk of DTO Patiala, has been allowed to prove the validity of the driving licence of petitioner which was allegedly found from near the dead body of Harinder Singh deceased. Recovery of the said driving licence of the petitioner from near the dead body is one of the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution agency to connect the petitioner to the crime. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 30.11.2011, on the following grounds:- (i) that the statement of the Clerk of DTO, . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-37383 of 2011 Patiala, was never recorded during the course of investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C., by the Investigating Officer; (ii) that the Investigating Officer himself has admitted in the cross-examination that he had not obtained any document regarding the issuance of driving licence of the petitioner by the concerned authority; (iii) that when confronted the Investigating Officer was not able to point out any document to establish that the licence was not fabricated; (iv) that the production of official of DTO, Patiala, will tantamount to filling-in the lacuna which has been prima facie established on the cross- examination of the Investigating Officer; and (v) that even father of the deceased in his statement has not referred to the recovery of any driving licence from near the dead body of Harinder Singh deceased. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the circumstances of the case. Without expression of any opinion regarding the maintainability of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the following circumstances are, inter alia, required to be established by the prosecution agency: - (i) Whether the driving licence of the petitioner . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-37383 of 2011 was recovered from near the dead body of Harinder Singh; and (ii) Whether the said driving licence is a genuine driving licence of the petitioner in view of defence of the petitioner that neither the driving licence was recovered from the spot nor the said document is a genuine document. I have considered the arguments and above circumstances and find that whether the driving licence is genuine or it is a forged document or it is a relevant fact, is not to be determined, at this stage. Besides this, I find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that an attempt is being made to fill-in the lacuna but at the same time, it is observed that it is the discretion of the trial Court to summon any witness, at any stage, if the trial Court deems it appropriate to examine the witnesses in the interest of justice and to arrive at a just conclusion. The plea that the Investigating Agency had not acted fairly and had made an attempt to incorporate a false circumstance of “recovery of driving licence” from the spot, will always be available to the petitioner during the course of trial. Any attempt made by the prosecution agency to make improvements can be pointed out by the petitioner to seek the benefit of doubt at the final stage. The petitioner can also impeach the credibility of the Investigating Agency. The plea that the examination of Clerk of DTO to establish the genuineness of the . . . 3 Crl. Misc. No.M-37383 of 2011 driving licence alleged to have been recovered from the spot is not a relevant fact or that it is not important to establish that fact in issue, will always be open to the petitioner at the final adjudication of the trial. Expression of any opinion on the said controversy, at this stage, might prejudice the rights of the prosecution or the petitioner. In order to avoid any such observation, I do not find any ground to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere in the order dated 30.11.2011. Leaving the petitioner to take up all the pleas regarding the admissibility or relevancy of the evidence of clerk of DTO, Patiala, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner may challenge the same at opportune time. It is also observed that allowing of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner and the examination of Clerk of DTO, Patiala, will be subject to all the rules of admissibility and relevancy as per the Evidence Act. All legal objections of the petitioner will be open to be raised, at final stage. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 12, 2011. rka . . . 4