IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 2011 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.08.2011 Sukhwinder Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Anr. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC') against the order dated 7.7.2011, whereby the application moved by the complainant for summoning the accused was dismissed by the trial Court. Petitioner is the complainant qua the FIR No. 13 dated 10.1.2002 registered against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. During the pendency of the trial an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr. PC seeking summoning of five witnesses Balwinder Singh Bhandal, Deputy Director, Documents for Sainik Lab (Punjab) Chandigarh (2) ASI Gopal Krishan, 3) Taranjit Singh Patwari Halqa of villge Gill No. 1. 4) Gurjant Singh son of S. Gurdial 5. SI Kamal Dev and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated CRR No. 2011 of 2010 -2- 7.7.2011. dated 7.7.2011. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as PW Balwinder Singh Bhandal is concerned, the summons qua the same has been received back with the report that number and date of the report be provided to the witneses so that the file could be traced out from the record. However, no such summons were issued mentioning the number and date of the report by the Ahlmad of the Court. So far as PW Taranjit Singh is concerned he was required to be summoned with bailable warrants but no such warrants were issued by the trial Court. Summons qua PW ASI Gopal Krishan and SI Kemal Dev were also not issued by the trial Court. In these circumstances, the prosecution could not be described as a defaulter. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3 has submitted that 44 opportunities were granted to the prosecution to conclude its evidence including nine last opportunities. However, the prosecution had failed to conclude its evidence and hence the application under Section 311 Cr.PC was liable to be dismissed. Section 311 Cr.PC 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. CRR No. 2011 of 2010 -3- Thus, as per the above provision the trial Court can summon any witness if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. A perusal of the interim order and reports reproduced in the grounds of the petition revealed that the notices sent to PW Balwinder Singh Bhandal were received back with a request that the number and date of the report be provided so that the file could be traced out and the witness could appear before the Court alongwith file. However, the summons were not issued by the Ahlmad after doing the needful. So far as PW Taranjit Singh is concerned, he was required to be summoned through bailable warrants but the said warrants were not issued by the Court. Summons qua remaining witnesses had also not been issued by the Court. Although 44 opportunities were allowed to the prosecution to lead its evidence but the summons were required to be issued by the trial Court qua summoning of the relevant witnesses. In the facts and circumstances of the case the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.PC was liable to be allowed as it was necessary to examine the Investigating Officer and the experts for the just decision of the case. The Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application being influenced by the fact that the case was pending for last 7 years. It was for the Court to have issued the necessary summons so that the prosecution could examine the witnesses Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.7.2011 is set aside and consequently the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.PC is allowed. (SABINA) 02.08.2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)