1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 19415-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.8.2009 *** Ranjit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6, 11 to 15. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is complainant in case FIR No.159 dated 11.7.1999, under Sections 364, 120-B IPC, Police Station Chhainsa. He is aggrieved with order dated 10.7.2009 passed by the trial court, whereby the application of the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner only wants to tender a copy of judgment dated 15.1.2003 passed in FIR No.244 dated 22.8.1994, under Sections 395, 398 IPC, Police Station Chhainsa by dint of which some of the accused facing trial in the case in hand, were convicted and sentenced to show that the parties have strained relations and are involved in multiple disputes since long. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that for tendering copy of judgment of conviction and sentence, no oral evidence is required since the same is perse admissible document and for this the petitioner requires only one opportunity. 2 In order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions under Section 311 of the Code are enacted whereunder any Court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. In the instant case, the prosecution only wants to tender the copy of a judgment passed by the Court and no evidence in affirmative is required to be led. No prejudice is going to cause to the accused, who obviously have an opportunity to rebut the same since their evidence is yet to conclude. Further there may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence 'to enable it to pronounce Judgment', it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities, this Court is of the considered opinion that an opportunity is to be provided to the prosecution for tendering the copy of judgment by means of additional evidence. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and order, under challenge, is quashed. The appellate court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner/prosecution for tendering the copy of judgment, referred to above and then proceed with the trial in accordance with law. However, nothing said hereinabove shall have any bearing on the merits of the case. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 13, 2009 Jiten