IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.Revision No.54 of 2010. Date of decision : 21.04.2010. Ashok Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned trial Court allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal procedure for summoning evidence as detailed in the application. The petitioner is facing trial in FIR No.13 of 2005, dated 28.3.2005 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. An application was filed by the prosecution praying that in the case Shri Shamsher Singh Auditor PW-1 was examined before the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Court on 27.01.2010. The application proceeds that some pass books etc. were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer but these were required to show and prove that the petitioner had committed the offences as charged. The application proceeds further that the cash book, ledger etc. are lying with the Secretary, Cooperative Society, Andora and these documents are necessary to establish the case of the prosecution. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned Court below does not seem to have applied its mind to the facts of the case. The application has been drafted in a most casual manner and is jumbled up. While disposing it of, the learned Court has allowed the application for recalling the witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. True that the Court can permit bringing on record additional evidence as it is the well settled law, but at the same time the power under Section 311 is confined to do complete justice between the parties and applies both for the prosecution as also the accused. However, what needs to be kept in mind is that a cause justifiable in law for such examination should be made out and not merely a mere wish and desire. The need and justification should be spelt out with clarity so that the Court knows with reasonable certainty as to what is required to be produced from the witness and the evidence required. As I find from 3 the record, the application is a mixed jumbled of facts and permission under such circumstances cannot be granted. In these circumstances, this revision is allowed. The order of the learned Special Judge is quashed and set aside. Having held that, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from moving an appropriate application indicating with certainty and detail the record etc. required, if any, for summoning the evidence/witnesses in accordance with law. For this purpose obviously, the application should contain the necessary details with some clarity. The revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. April 21, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.