Crl. Misc. No. M-22960 of 2011 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-22960 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.8.2011. Devender @ Chuja .......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the order dated 11.7.2011 (Annexure P-11) whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed. Joginder Singh lodged an FIR No. 514 dated 22.12.2008 under Sections 302,120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonepat qua murder of his brother Varinder who had suffered bullets in his head and left arm. It was alleged by the complainant that on seeing the Closed Circuit Television ('CCTV' for short) footage recording in the hospital, he had seen the person who had fired at the deceased and the said person was Devender Nai. Ram Kumar was also present at the spot. Virender and Devender Nai had some dispute qua money and due to this reason, Devender Nai had shot dead Virender. During trial, prosecution examined Crl. Misc. No. M-22960 of 2011 (O&M) -2 - various witnesses. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved qua summoning the Director/Assistant Director/Expert in Electronic Evidence either from Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban or Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and Sub Registrar/record Keeper of the office of Sub Registrar Indri District Karnal along with General Power of Attorney No. 02.7.2008 Bahi No. 4 Zild No. 3. Vide the impugned order dated 11.7.2011 (Annexure P-11), the said application was allowed. Hence, the present petition by the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was in the nature of seeking further investigation of the case. The witnesses, now sought to be examined, were not described in the list of witnesses. The prosecution by way of the present application wanted to fill up the lacuna in this case. After hearing 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 proceedings 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 trial court can summon any person as a witness during trial for the just decision of Crl. Misc. No. M-22960 of 2011 (O&M) -3 - the case. In the present case, the footage of the CCTV was shown to the complainant and thereafter, the prosecution case proceeded further. The complainant had identified the accused on seeing the CCTV footage. During trial, number of witnesses had been examined but the application was moved by the prosecution after PW-25 and PW-26 had failed to support the prosecution case. The case of the prosecution is dependent on CCTV footage and in case, the opinion of the expert comes on record qua the said footage, the trial court would be able to impart justice to the parties. The evidence now sought to be led on record is not liable to be created at this stage. The learned trial court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and the same does not suffer from the vice of illegality which would warrant interference by this court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 01, 2011 Gurpreet