Criminal Revision No.1719 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1719 of 2011 Date of Decision : 4th August, 2011 Gurdeep Singh & another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. P. S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Gurdeep Singh and Gurmeet Singh accused have filed the instant criminal revision to assail order dated 22.07.2011 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana whereby prosecution application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.) has been allowed. Petitioners are facing trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) and for offences under various Sections of Indian Pendal Code. The prosecution by way of additional evidence under Section 311 Cr. P.C. sought permission to produce caste certificate of complainant Lakhvir Singh to depict that he belongs to Scheduled Caste, which is essential ingredient of the offence under the Act for which the petitioners have been charged. The application has been allowed by the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. has been moved by complainant and therefore, the same is not maintainable because in a trial before Sessions Judge, a private person has no locus standi to file application under Section 311 Cr. P. C., as Criminal Revision No.1719 of 2011 -2- held by Rajasthan High Court in the case of Arseeda V. State of Rajasthan & Another, 2008 Criminal Law Journal (NOC) 113 (Rajasthan). The contention is completely misconceived and meritless. No such ground has even been pleaded in the grounds of revision that the application under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was moved by the complainant and not by the public prosecutor. On the contrary, copy of the application shown by the counsel for the petitioners depicts that the application was moved by complainant through public prosecutor. Consequently, the said application was very much maintainable. As regards merits of the application, the prosecution evidence has not yet been concluded. The trial Judge found that proposed evidence is essential for proper decision of the case. The trial Judge has exercised discretion vested in him under Section 311 Cr. P. C. It cannot be said that the discretion has been exercised in perverse or illegal manner, so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It also cannot be said that the trial Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him or has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. On the contrary, prosecution evidence has not yet been concluded and the application was moved while the case was still going on for recording of prosecution evidence. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality, perversity or such other infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The instant revision petition is dismissed in limine, being devoid of merit. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 4th August, 2011 'raj'