IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.88 of 2011 Date of decision : June 17, 2011 Ravinder Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, and Ms Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge(Oral) The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to confront the witness with the statement, which he had made before the Divisional Forest Officer, has been wrongly rejected by the learned trial Magistrate. The order passed by the learned trial Court observes that the petitioner herein seeks to fill in lacunae in his evidence. This is not the correct approach while dealing with applications under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, where the Court holds that the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… provision is in parimeteria with Section 540 of the old Code and that the power can be exercised at any stage by a court. It is the cardinal rule of law that the best available evidence should be brought before the Court to adjudicate the controversy before it in order to arrive at a just decision. This principle was later on reiterated by the Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 3 SCC 374. 3. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court for dismissal of the application is not warranted and the order is set aside. This case is now at the arguments stage. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction that it will be open to the petitioner that in the revision/appeal, which he may prefer in the appellate Court, if the case goes against him, he may demonstrate that the rejection of the application has caused a serious prejudice to his defence. Miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( Dev Darshan Sud ), June 17, 2011(sd) Judge.