CRM No. M 15199 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 15199 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 Hardial Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P S Paul, DAG, Punjab Mr R S Bajaj, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not allowed to adduce additional evidence pertaining to judgement and decree dated 01.11.2006 with regard to family settlement dated 15.03.2001 in respect of the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that leading of such evidence would not amount of filling of lacunae in the prosecution evidence. He also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of CRM No. M 15199 of 2009 2 India in case Rajendra Prasad v. The Narcotic Cell through its Officer-in- charge, Delhi, 1999(3) RCR (Criminal) 440 in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the earlier order dated 20.03.2008 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar seeking permission to place on record the copy of the order dated 01.11.2006. However, the same was dismissed having moved at the belated stage. Thereafter, second application was moved under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Additional Public Prosecutor. But the same was also dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. Since, the earlier order dated 20.03.2008, referred to above, was never challenged, the petitioner cannot have the liberty to challenge the second order as the earlier order has become final. There is no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents in as much as para 19 of the present petition shows that the petitioner has duly challenged both the orders dated 20.03.2008 and 30.03.2009. Sector 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:- 311. 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 its 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. CRM No. M 15199 of 2009 3 Moreover, the producing of a judgement and decree passed by the Court below cannot be said to fill any lacunae in the facts of the present case. Moreover, the relevancy of the same can always be considered by the Court at the time of final decision. In the interest of justice, for ascertaining the truth and for proper adjudication of the case, the present petitioner is allowed. Both the orders dated 20.03.2008 and 30.03.2009, respectively, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar are hereby set aside and the petitioner is allowed to adduce additional evidence pertaining to judgement and decree dated 01.11.2006 with regard to family settlement dated 15.03.2001 in respect of the land in question. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 10, 2010 mohan