Crl. Revision No. 2889 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2889 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 26, 2010 Mangat Masih ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the trial Court whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution was allowed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant 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.” Thus, as per the above provision the Court has the power Crl. Revision No. 2889 of 2010 (O&M) 2 to summon any person as a witness if the evidence of such person appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. During the pendency of the trial an application was moved by the prosecution to examine patwari of village Talabpura to prove the revenue record and clerk of District Magistrate, Amritsar to prove the order whereby sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was granted. Learned trial Court has observed in the impugned order that a perusal of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. reveals that sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner has been attached alongwith it. Apparently, due to inadvertence the name of the witness who was to prove the sanction order was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. It is essential for the prosecution to prove the order whereby sanction to prosecute the petitioner was granted by the competent authority. Admittedly, the prosecution evidence still continuing and hence it cannot be said that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution to fill up lacuna in the case. The application has been filed to examine the clerk to prove the sanction order which already forms part of the challan. The Investigating Officer also took some revenue record in possession. The documents were produced on record during examination-in- chief of retired DSP Bakhshish Singh. In these circumstances, it was essential for the prosecution to examine the revenue partwari to prove the record. The jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial Court while allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. does not suffer from the vice of illegality and hence no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) October 26, 2010 JUDGE Anand