Crl. R. No. 2772 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No. 2772 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.10.2009. ... Sohan Lal ................ Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the application for additional evidence of the prosecution to summon three doctors, by way of additional evidence, was accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no reason has been given by the prosecution for non-citing the three doctors as witnesses. So, in view of the authority reported as Mukesh Goswami vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2007 (5) RCR (Criminal) 142, the application should have been dismissed by the trial Court. I have carefully considered the submission made by learend Crl. R. No. 2772 of 2009 -2- counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case. The learned trial Court has given well reasoning for summoning the doctors. Section 311 Cr.P.C. gives wide power to the trial Court. The case is stated to be fixed for prosecution evidence. The trial Court has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as Baljit and other vs. State of Haryana and another 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 178 and U.T. Of Dadra and Haveli and another 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 113. So, far as Mukesh Goswami's case (Supra) is concerned, that authority does not help the petitioner. The prosecution has given reasoning for examining the doctors during the course of arguments before the trial Court. No ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 27.10.2009. Judge chugh