Crl. Revision No. 310 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 310 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.02.2010 Buta Ram s/o Nanju Ram, r/o village Pharwala, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. ....... Revision petitioner Versus 1. State of Punjab, 2. Surinder Pal s/o Babu Ram, r/o village Pharwala, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the revision-petitioner. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the revision- petitioner, for challenging the order dated 16.12.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., moved by the prosecution, was allowed. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. Crl. Revision No. 310 of 2010 2 3. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, has submitted that the complainant was examined-in-chief and thoroughly cross-examined by the respondents. He has further submitted that lateron, they made an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. that CD and memory card, in which the facts of this case were discussed and which were having conversation of the complainant had been traced by them and, as such, the complainant be re-called for further cross-examination. He has further submitted that the FIR was registered in the year 2006. He has further submitted that, in case, the aforesaid CD and memory card had been traced, by the accused, then he could prove the same at the time of his defence evidence. He has further submitted that the Court below, illegally allowed the application. 4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the revision-petition against the order like the one, under challenge, is maintainable or not. The answer to this question, is provided by Raghbir Singh and anr. vs. State of Haryana, 1988(2) RCR (Criminal) 578, a case decided by this Court. In the said Crl. Revision No. 310 of 2010 3 case, an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was moved, before the trial Court, which was dismissed. A revision was filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, which accepted the same, and allowed the application, to re-call Dhanpat, PW, for the purpose of cross-examination. Ultimately, a revision petition was filed in this Court. It was held by this Court, that since it was an interlocutory order, the revision petition was not maintainable. The principle of law, laid down,in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the order impugned is an interlocutory order, the revision petition is not maintainable. 5. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the order impugned suffers from illegality or perversity or not. It may be stated here, that, no doubt, the complainant was examined and cross-examined by the accused-respondent. However, the CD and memory card were traced lateron by him after the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the complainant. In that CD and memory card, as per the allegations, there was discussions with regard to the case, in question, and even there was conversation of the complainant. Under these circumstances, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved for re-summoning the Crl. Revision No. 310 of 2010 4 complainant for further cross-examination, so as to put him the CD and memory card. The provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. vest a wide discretion, in the Court, to re-call any witness, at any point of time, during enquiry or trial, for further examination or cross-examination, if such evidence was essential for the just decision of the case. If the Court comes to the conclusion that evidence, sought to be summoned, was essential for the just decision of the case and to impart complete justice, between the parties, then no embargo can be imposed upon its power to examine the same. In Harinder Gun House v. Mohinder Kaur 2006 (2) RCR 416 and Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. 2008(3) RCR (Criminal 897 (SC), similar principle of law was laid down. The CD and the memory card are required to be put to the complainant with a view to confront him, with the conversation, and the discussion with regard to the case, contained therein. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the discretion exercised by the trial Court, in allowing the application, under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was in any way arbitrary or capricious. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. Crl. Revision No. 310 of 2010 5 6. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE February 04, 2010 dinesh