Crl.Rev. No.2421 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: September 08, 2010. Crl.Rev. No.2421 of 2010 (O&M) . Ravinder Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. . Respondent *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner has placed on record copies of statements of the witnesses made before the trial Court in order to substantiate his argument that prima facie he has got a good case against re-summoning of witnesses. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 05.07.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for recalling . . . 1 Crl.Rev. No.2421 of 2010 (O&M) complainant PW.1 Kulwant Kaur and PW.7 Rajesh Kumar Gulati. The trial Court has re-summoned the said witnesses in order to determine the fact that the deceased Bakshish Singh son of Kulwant Kaur complainant, was last seen with the accused in the M.K. Hotel by putting the contents of the C.D., to the complainant Kulwant Kaur and to PW.7 Rajesh Kumar Gulati, the manager of the Hotel. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allowing of the application will tantamount to fill in the lacunae and is not in the interest of justice. He has also argued that on earlier occasion, an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., by Kulwant Kaur to resummon the witnesses who had turned hostile was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 14.05.2010, as such, the allowing of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is not permissible under the law. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. The case of the prosecution, as registered at the instance of Kulwant Kaur, is that the deceased Bakshish Singh, her son, had been promised to be taken to Canada by the accused but he was taken to a Hotel in Amritsar where he was murdered. No doubt the complainant by appearing as PW.1 has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version and PW.7 Manager of the M.K.Hotel, has also been examined and produced the C.D., which was taken in possession earlier by the Investigating Officer vide recovery memo EX.PL, but the trial Court with a sole objective to . . . 2 Crl.Rev. No.2421 of 2010 (O&M) arrive at a just conclusion whether the deceased was last seen at the Hotel has, in the interest of justice, resummoned the above said witnesses. The provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C., enables the Court at any stage of the trial Court to summon any person as a witness and examine him if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. The C.D., the contents of which are to be put to PW.1 Kulwant Kaur, mother of the deceased and PW.7, Rajesh Kumar Gulati, the Manager of the Hotel, are necessary to determine the circumstance that the deceased was last seen with the accused. It is settled principle of law that such circumstance alone will not be sufficient enough to warrant conviction but in case it forms an important link in the chain of circumstances, the said circumstance if established would be a crucial link. I do not agree with the counsel for the petitioner that it will tantamount to creating evidence by the limited examination of PW.1 and PW.7, or resummoning them will not help the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 08, 2010. rka . . . 3