IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M 2018 of 2010 Date of decision: .1.2.2010 Hakiman ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Johan Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ORDER The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.has been filed for quashing of order dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nuh, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 6.8.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for additional evidence was dismissed. FIR No. 165 dated 8.7.2001 under Sections 148/149/323/324/452 IPC was lodged by the petitioner against respondents No.2 to 7. The matter was investigated by the police and challan was presented in the Court and charges were framed against them. Respondent No.7 also filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh regarding the same occurrence as mentioned in the FIR against the family members of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for additional evidence which was dismissed by Crl.Misc. No. M 2018 of 2010 [2] the courts below. The present petition has been filed on the ground that respondent No.7 has admitted the occurrence which was alleged by the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR and has also admitted that he gave beating and injury to the petitioner and his family members and both the Courts below have wrongly dismissed the application without taking into consideration these facts. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the orders passed by the courts below. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the evidence recorded in other case cannot be taken into account for arriving at a decision. That can only be possible if both the parties are agreed for the same. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mitthulal and another v. The state of Madhya Pradesh [1975 ]3 SCC 529 that each case is to be decided on the basis of evidence recorded therein only and not evidence recorded in the cross-case for arriving at a conclusive decision. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it may be noticed that in exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. , the Court may at any stage of the trial summon any person as a witness though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. Therefore, evidently the Court has been empowered to summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial. The Court having exercised the jurisdiction in this regard would not Crl.Misc. No. M 2018 of 2010 [3] warrant any interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. However, it may be noticed when the Court has itself granted one opportunity to examine the witnesses, therefore, granting of further opportunity may not be fully justified keeping in view the long pendency of the case. In the present case, evidence of the prosecution had started way back on 23.4.2002 and number of opportunities were given to the petitioner to lead evidence and the case was for final arguments and moreover, the additional evidence which the petitioner wanted to place on record was in his knowledge and no reason has been given as to why that evidence was not produced by him. For the reasons recorded above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The petition is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 01, 2010. raghav