Crl. Rev.2079 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. M-2079 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.8.2011 Nar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharath Sarup, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for respondent No.2. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). In this revision petition preferred by the complainant Nar Singh, order dated 27th May, 2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karnal has been impugned, whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning witness Mohinder Singh was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mohinder Singh was an eye-witness to the crime and his deposition before the court is necessary. He has relied upon judgment reported as Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell (1999) 6 Supreme court Cases 110 to contend that provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are to be liberally construed and a witness can be summoned/recalled at any stage of the proceedings for just decision of the case. Learned State counsel submits that eye-witness Mohinder Singh was inadvertently given up as unnecessary by the Public Crl. Rev.2079 of 2010 2 Prosecutor. According to him, his testimony is of material importance in the facts and circumstances of the case. The prayer for summoning Mohinder Singh has, however, been opposed by Mr. Ram Chander, learned counsel for respondent No.2. He submits that after having given up a witness once, prosecution is not entitled to fill up the lacunae in its case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Admittedly, Mohinder Singh was cited as a witness by the prosecution in the final report submitted by it. According to stand of the petitioner as well as the State, Mohinder Singh is sought to be examined as an eye-witness. In view of law laid down by the apex court in Rajendra Prasad's case (supra), for just decision of the case, a witness can be summoned/recalled at any stage of the proceedings. In the instant case, trial of the case is still pending for defence evidence. Since prosecution has taken a stand that testimony of Mohinder Singh is important for a just decision in the case, I am of the considered view that prosecution deserves one opportunity to examine him as a witness. In view of this, the impugned order is hereby set-aside. One opportunity is granted to the prosecution to examine Mohinder Singh as a witness. Disposed of. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 12.8.2011 'rajpal'