Criminal Misc. No. M-10342 of 2011(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-10342 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 07, 2011 Gurtej Singh ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent – State. Mr.Deep Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This complainant's petition is directed against the order dated march 31 st, 2011 (Annexure P2) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, whereby, application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `CrPC') to recall Gurcharan Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (Investigator) was dismissed. 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that examination- in-chief of Gurcharan Singh was recorded on April 01 st, 2009. His cross-examination was deferred on account of non-availability of the counsel for the accused. The solitary ground to dismiss the application, as mentioned by the Trial Magistrate, is that prosecution had already closed its evidence and the trial was fixed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the evidence was closed due to non-availability of the counsel for the accused, for which the complainant should not suffer. He has also submitted that trial is fixed for arguments on an application filed by Criminal Misc. No. M-10342 of 2011(O&M) [2] the accused under Section 311 CrPC. 4. Section 311 CrPC contains a salutary provision that in cases where the evidence of a witness appears to be essential for the just decision of the case, the Court must recall such a witness for the purpose of re-examination, cross examination or for further examination. No doubt, a discretion has been conferred on the Court to summon any person as a witness but simultaneously, an obligation is also cast on the Court to record a conclusion that for just decision of the case, it is essential to recall, re-examine or cross-examine any other witness. 5. In the present case, the witness sought to be recalled is the Investigator of the case. 6. In view of above, the petition is allowed and the order, under challenge, is set aside. Consequently, an opportunity is granted to the prosecution to recall Gurcharan Singh for further evidence. November 07, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE