1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1037 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.8.2009 *** Gurinder Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 3.1.2006 for an offence under Section 406 IPC for having misappropriated 7500 bags of paddy of value Rs. 31,60,748/-, entrusted to him by PUNSUP. After his conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Court of Session, during pendency of which he filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and sought summoning of one Ravi Kumar to prove letter dated 8.9.2008 and reply thereof sent by Information Officer that 10175 bags of paddy are lying in the premises of M/s Shri Ganesh Udyog, Kaheru, Dhuri; Amarjit Singh, Bailiff to prove his report, who went to execute the warrant of attachment, but could not execute the same since there was no one to receive the articles lying in the sheller and one Rajnish Kumar, Advocate, who was appointed as Local Commissioner during the proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal, who reported that five stacks of paddy were lying at the sheller of the petitioner. The said application, after hearing the State has been dismissed, leading to the institution of the present revision petition. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence sought to be produce is a subsequent event after the conviction 2 recorded by the learned trial court and are necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the pending appeal. Heard. In order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions under Section 311 of the Code are enacted whereunder any Court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. In the instant case, the petitioner has been held guilty under Section 406 IPC for having mis-appropriated 7500 bags of paddy entrusted to him by the Government agency. Vide the application in hand the petitioner is seeking permission to lead additional evidence to show that in fact no misappropriation has been done by him and the stocks are still lying in his sheller, on the strength of the material which has came into light after his conviction is being recorded by the trial Court. No prejudice is going to cause to the State, who obviously have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, sought to be produced by the accused by way of additional evidence. Further there may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence 'to enable it to pronounce Judgment', it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and order, under challenge, is quashed. The appellate court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for leading additional evidence and then proceed with the appeal in accordance with law. However, nothing said hereinabove shall have any bearing on the merits of the case. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 12,2009 Jiten