Crl.Rev.No. 2525 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 2525 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.9.2010 M/s Shree Bala Ji Enerprise ......Petitioner Versus M/s Sarswati Pulp Pakages and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging order dated 9.7.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sangrur, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon the record from the Sales Tax Department was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had moved the application on 29.7.2008 for proving the record of the Sales Tax Department by examining the clerk concerned. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner will examine the clerk of the Sales Tax Department at its own risk Crl.Rev.No. 2525 of 2010 2 and responsibility on the date fixed before the trial Court i.e. 28.9.2010. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” As per the above provision, the Court at any stage of trial may summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. Although in the present case, the complainant was examined on 4.6.2007 and closed its evidence on 13.2.2008, but the application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 29.7.2008 after recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court had kept the application pending for about two years and has dismissed the same on 9.7.2010. Had the application been decided expeditiously, by now the petitioner would have Crl.Rev.No. 2525 of 2010 3 examined the clerk of the Sales Tax Department to prove the Returns in question. In case the petitioner is allowed to examine the clerk of the Sales Tax Department, it would help the trial Court to decide the trial in a just and a fair manner. The petitioner has nothing to gain by delaying the trial as the complaint in question has been filed by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to allow one opportunity to the petitioner to examine the clerk of the Sales Tax Department at its own risk and responsibility. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 9.7.2010 is set aside. Consequently, the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner be allowed to examine the clerk of the Sales Tax Department on the date fixed before the trial Court i.e. 28.9.2010 at its own risk and responsibility. It is clarified that no further opportunity will be granted to the petitioner to examine the said witness except in case the Court is not held on the date fixed for any reason. SABINA) JUDGE September 15, 2010 anita