HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 27 of 2010 Decided on: 11.11.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Petitioner. Versus Anant Ram and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No.1: Mr.Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Mr.V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a petition filed by the petitioner/State of H.P. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., dated 14.5.2009, vide which he had dismissed two applications filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the court below, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, which is opposed by the respondents. 3. I have heard Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General for the petitioner, Mr.Y.P. Sood counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.V.S. Chauhan, counsel for respondent No.2 and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the first prayer made in the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner was that the _____________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - witness Sampuran Singh was examined as prosecution witness but the audit report prepared by him was not available when he was examined and, therefore, he is sought to be recalled to prove the audit report in question. The other prayer made in the second application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert Meenakshi Mahajan was taken but she was not cited as prosecution witness in the list of witnesses. Report of the Handwriting Expert cannot be tendered in evidence and has to be proved by examining the expert, hence the application filed by the State. 5. After considering the material on record, I am of the opinion that both the applications deserved to be allowed and the impugned order, dated 14.5.2009, deserves to be set aside. Therefore, the present petition is allowed, permission is granted to the State to examine both the witnesses. However, it is made clear that only two opportunities shall be granted to the State to examine the said witnesses. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 13.12.2010 and the learned trial Court shall proceed with the case and shall fix short dates for recording the evidence of the witnesses. Summons shall be got served through Constable specially deputed for the purpose. The Registry is directed to send the records of the case alongwith a copy of this judgment so as to reach the learned trial Court well before the date fixed. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. November 11, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge