Crl. Misc. No. 12840 of 2010 and (1) Crl. Misc. No. M-4303 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 12840 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-4303 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 11.3.2010 Satbir Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Satte @ Satpal & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rajbir Sherawat, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 12840 of 2010 This is an application for placing on record copy of order dated 11.1.2008 passed by JMIC, Sonepat as Annexure P-3. Application is allowed. Order dated 11.1.2008 passed by JMIC, Sonepat is taken on record as Annexure P-3. Crl. Misc. No. M-4303 of 2010 The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 4.11.2009 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the application of the petitioner for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injured were medico legally examined by Dr. Sham Lal and he was summoned as witness but he could not come present in the Court as witness and the Crl. Misc. No. 12840 of 2010 and (2) Crl. Misc. No. M-4303 of 2010 evidence was closed by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the doctor who medico legally examined the injured is an author of MLRs and he is necessary to be examined. Learned counsel also submits that the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence has wrongly been dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order closing the evidence of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India and another 1991 STPL (LE) 16443 SC to contend that the summoning of Dr. Sham Lal as witness is essential for the just decision of the case and moreover the application for leading additional evidence cannot be dismissed on the ground that it would amount to review of the earlier order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is not based on the settled proposition of law, as it has wrongly been mentioned that the leading of additional evidence would amount to review of the earlier order and the same has been passed without application of mind. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajeswar Prosad Misra Vs. State of West Bengal (1966) 1 SCR 178 has held as under:- “Additional evidence may be necessary for a variety of reasons which it is hardly necessary (even if it was possible) to list here. We do not propose to do what the Legislature has refrained from doing, namely, to contro discretion of the appellate Court to certain stated circumstances. It may, however, be said that additional evidence must be necessary not because it would be impossible to pronounce judgment but Crl. Misc. No. 12840 of 2010 and (3) Crl. Misc. No. M-4303 of 2010 because there would be failure of justice without it. The power must be exercised sparingly and only in suitable cases. Once such action is justified, there is no restriction on the kind of evidence which may be received. It may be formal or substantial.” The power of summoning an additional witness can be exercised at any stage of the case and moreover it would not amount to review of the earlier order, whereby, the prosecution evidence has been closed, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., Court can summon or examine any person as witness or even recall or re-examine any person already examined if essential to the just decision of the case. Since, the impugned order has been passed on wrong presumption that it would amount to review of the earlier order and the same has been passed without application of mind and the law settled by this Court and Hon'ble the Apex Court in various judgments, the impugned order dated 4.11.2009 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner for leading of additional evidence by passing a speaking order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. March 11, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No