\'^ HIGH COIIOT nc; K.S. Priya @ Maiti @ Shantipriya W/o K. Ramchandra Reddy @ Ramesh @ Vijay @ Gudsa Usendi @ Suni! Chaudhary, aged about 40 years, R/o Farid Nagar, P.S. Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) Permanent R/o jhat, Hyderabad (Andra ssh) VERSUS Stats of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Police Station, D.D. Nagar, Raipur tt \ •-••^•'1 1[1 :CTION 397/401 OF THE MINAL rinearsnce ^j.:,^^ f^],nanrtrs uiiaiiuiel Mr. R.R. Slnha, Panef irma, Advocate for the petitioner. -awyerjor the State. Heard. Petltioner- K.S. Priya @ Maiti .@ Shantipriya is one of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 76/2008 pendlng in the Court of 5 Additiona! Sessions Judge, Raipur under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 122, 124-A IPC and various Sections of C.G. Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 as also una'er various provisions of Prevention of liegal Act, 1976, Arms Act, Teiegraph Act and Explosive Act ete. In the said Sessions Tria!, the evidence of the prosecution is going on. Smf. Poonam Sharma Is o'ne of the witnesses of the prosecution. Name of Smt. Poonam Sharma vvas not mentioneo' in the list of witnesses in Furd Challan. When this came to the notice of the Public Prosecutor. ri^ 1^>.. CRiMitiAL REVISION__NO. 571i'2011 he fiied an application under Section 311 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure, rnaking request to the Court for granting perrnission to examine Smt. Poonam Sharma as a witness from the prosecution side. The ieamed Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 02.09.2011, ailowed the said application. 'unsel appearlr t of the Court n oeiiaii ounts to Mr. Satish Chandra Verrna, learned of the petitioner, submits that the above act fllling the lacuna of the prosecution case. A perusa! of the impugned or\der would show that the prosecution has not ciosed its evicence. Srnt. Poonam Sharrna, the then Executive Magistrate, Raipur appears to be the witness of two identification rnemos i.e. Ex-P-7 & Ex-P-8. iVIerely, on the lapse of not writing her name as a prosecution wimesses, and thereupon, permitting her to be examined at this stage vvhen the prosecution evidence is going on, wouid never amount to filiing the iacuna of the prosecution case. 1 am of the vlew that the learned Sessions Judge has rightiy exercised his jurisdiction by allowing the above app'ication, filed by the prosecution for calling the above prosecution 'A'itnesses. For the foregoing reasons, 1 do not flnd any substances in this revision. The revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge Rahul