CRR No.2480 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. M-2480 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.11.2009 Nirmala Devi ...Petitioner Versus Baljit Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sunil Polist, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a revision petition wherein order dated 12.9.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal has been impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application of the prosecution for examining Head Master of Government Girls Primary School, Kurar to prove the age of the prosecutrix, has been wrongly declined. According to the counsel, the name of the said witness figured in the supplementary challan submitted by the prosecution and he is a material witness in the case. According to him, examination of the said witness cannot be said to be for the purposes of filling up lacuna in the prosecution case. He relies upon judgment reported as Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 110 in support of his plea. CRR No.2480 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that it was due to oversight on the part of the prosecution that the said witness could not be examined earlier. According to the counsel, evidence of the said witness is very necessary to reach at a proper conclusion in the case. Learned counsel does not dispute the proposition of law laid down in the judgment reported as Rajendra Prasad's case (supra). Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has, however, opposed the prayer and submitted that this is an attempt to fill up lacuna in prosecution case at a stage when trial is nearing its culmination. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that it may be necessary to prove the age of the girl, the case being under Section 376 IPC, the evidence of Head Master may be necessary for arriving at a proper conclusion in that regard. The law is well settled as laid down in Rajendra Prasad's case (supra), wherein the apex court observed as under:- “It cannot be said as a legal proposition that the court cannot exercise power of resummoning any witness if once that power was exercised, nor can the power be whittled down merely on the ground that the prosecution discovered laches only when the defence highlighted them during final arguments. The power of the court is plenary to summon or even recall any witness at any stage of the case if the court considers it necessary for a just decision. The steps which the trial court permitted in this case for resummoning certain witnesses cannot therefore be spurned down or frowned at.” CRR No.2480 of 2009 3 Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution should be granted one opportunity to examine the witness cited by it. The revision petition is, thus, allowed. The order dated 12th September, 2009 is set-aside. The trial court shall grant one opportunity to the prosecution to examine the witness sought to be examined by the prosecution. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 12, 2009 'rajpal'