Crl. Misc. No.M-12124 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-12124 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.04.2010 Dr. Yog Raj ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab etc. ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of Order dated 21.03.2009 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C in complaint No.202 of 23.10.2000 pending before Special Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala and also quashing the Order dated 15.04.2010 passed in revision petition by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and to allow the application dated 17.01.2009 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C that he be allowed to examine the additional witnesses which were inadvertently left out. The said application was dismissed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala vide Order dated 21.03.2009. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed against Crl. Misc. No.M-12124 of 2010 2 the said order which was also dismissed by the Special Judge, Kapurthala vide Order dated 15.04.2010. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C reads as under :- “ 311. 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.” There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the Court has ample power to summon material witness or examine person by any Court at any stage. However, the said evidence has to be essential to the just decision of the case and not to fulfill a lacuna. Admittedly, the prosecution evidence led by the complainant has been closed. The defence evidence has also been led. It has not been pointed out as to how the examination of the additional evidence in the form of additional witnesses are required for a just decision. The only ground raised is that the same is required to rebut the defence evidence, whereas, no provision of law has been brought to the notice allowing leading rebuttal evidence by the complainant to the evidence led by the defence. Moreover, earlier also, on 10.02.2007, the petitioner had moved a similar application under Section 311 Cr.P.C that he may be allowed to lead additional evidence. The said application was allowed by the Court and the complainant-petitioner duly led his evidence on 07.04.2007. Thus, opportunity to lead evidence has already been granted to him. Thereafter, the evidence was closed. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to misuse the process of law under the garb of Section Crl. Misc. No.M-12124 of 2010 3 311 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the revision against the said Order has already been dismissed vide Order dated 21.03.2009. Therefore, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is nothing but a second revision which is, in any case, not maintainable. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.04.2010 JUDGE gurpreet