CRR No.2676 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-5.10.2010 Sham Lal s/o Labhu Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The epitome of the facts, which need a necessary mention, for deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of statement of complainant Dwarka Dass, the present case was registered against the accused, including the present petitioner, vide FIR No.2 dated 9.1.2002, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “the Act”), by the police of Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala. 2. After framing the charges, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined complainant Dwarka Dass as PW1 and Karnail Singh as PW2. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused moved an application (Annexure P1) under section 311 Cr.PC for further cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, which was dismissed by the Special Judge, by virtue of impugned order dated 21.11.2008. 3. The petitioner-accused did not feel satisfied and filed the present CRR No.2676 of 2008 (O&M) 2 petition for setting aside the impugned order of the Special Judge, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr.PC. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 5. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the Special Judge has vast power under section 311 Cr.PC, then he ought to have allowed further cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that having completed all the codal formalities and framing the charges, the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined complainant Dwarka Dass as PW1 and Karnail Singh as PW2. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused moved an application (Annexure P1) under section 311 Cr.PC for further cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 and the Special Judge has dismissed the same, vide impugned order dated 21.11.2008, the operative part of which is as under:- “The perusal of the file shows that examination-in-chief of PW-1 was recorded on 28.9.2004. He was cross-examined by the learned defence counsel on 4.2.2005, 16.1.2006 and 9.3.2006. Examination- in-chief of PW-2 was recorded on 28.9.2004 and he was cross- examined on 30.9.2008. This all shows that full opportunity has already been granted to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses. In case the witnesses have not been cross-examined with regard to some particular aspect, fault lies on the part of the accused or his counsel. So far as the question of citation is concerned facts of the said authority are not applicable to the case in hand. In the above reported case PWs were coerced and threatened to depose in favour of the accused and it is in these circumstances that the witnesses were allowed to be cross-examined further by the APP by recalling them under section 311 Cr.P.C. So is not the case, in the case in hand. So, the application being without any merit is dismissed.” 7. Meaning thereby, the Special Judge has recorded the valid reasons in CRR No.2676 of 2008 (O&M) 3 dismissing the application (Annexure P1) of the accused. It is now well settled recognized proposition of law that the jurisdiction under section 311 Cr.PC cannot be invoked to fill up the lacunae in the evidence left by the defence counsel To me, the trial Judge recorded valid reasons in this respect. Such interim order cannot possibly be set aside by this Court, while exercising the limited powers conferred under section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in it by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 5.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge