Crl.Rev.No. 2931 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 2931 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.11.2010 Shingara Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.S.Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C” for short) challenging the order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jagraon, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses had been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was very necessary in the interest of justice to examine PW Dr.Hardeep Singh EMO Dispensary to prove the medico legal report as well as ASI Jaswant Singh, who had conducted the investigation of the case. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of Crl.Rev.No. 2931 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” As per the above provision, the Court at any stage of trial may summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. In the present case, charge was framed on 12.8.2003. Thereafter, the prosecution availed numerous opportunities to conclude its evidence but failed to do so. In these circumstances, learned trial Court, left with no other option, closed the prosecution evidence by order on 16.9.2010. The witnesses now sought to be summoned were already a part of the list of the witnesses furnished at the time of presentation of challan. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the summons had already been sent through Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural) Ludhiana as well as through learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhina but the Crl.Rev.No. 2931 of 2010 (O&M) 3 service on the witnesses, now sought to be summoned, was not got effected by the prosecution. Hence, the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 01, 2010 anita