IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Sayra Sharma & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1874/2009) S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Date of Judgment: September 18th, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Pankaj Gupta, for the petitioners. Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: The petitioners have challenged the order dated 22-8-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned judge has allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and has summoned witnesses who were not cited in the witness list. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are facing trial before the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324, 325, 447 and 308 IPC. The charge sheet was filed on 4-8-2006. According to charge sheet 16 witnesses were mentioned in the calendar of witnesses. During pendency of the trial and during recording of statements of witnesses, the prosecution felt that Dr. S.P. Gupta and Dr. Ratiram Yadav are required to be summoned as prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon these witnesses on the ground that due to a bonafide mistake their names were not included in the list of witnesses. The learned trial court considering the scope and ambit of Section 311 Cr.P.C. allowed the application of the prosecution. Hence this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on Kishan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [1997 (2) RLR 211] to argue that since the prosecution was well aware of existence of these two witnesses, it was duty bound to include them in the list of witnesses. After a prolonged pendency of the case, the prosecution cannot be permitted to produce the witnesses, who were not included in the list of witnesses. By permitting the prosecution to do so, the learned trial court is permitting the prosecution to fill up its lacunae. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is well settled principle of law that the burden of proof on the prosecution is a heavy one. For, it is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if the prosecution is of the opinion that two more witnesses are required to prove its case, the prosecution was well within its power to move an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court has been passed after considering the scope and ambit of Section 311 Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter the learned trial court has legally and validly permitted the prosecution to bring forth two more witnesses in order to establish its case. 7. Therefore the misc. petition is devoid of merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn