Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Mathuria Alias Rahul And Others vs State Of Haryana on 5 December, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Revision No. 3803 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 3803 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 5.12.2013
Ravi Mathuria alias Rahul and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C' for short) challenging the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Trial Court whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that seizure memo now sought to be proved on record, was not part of the challan. Hence, the same could not be allowed to be proved on record at a belated stage.
Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.
Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any Singh Gurpreet 2013.12.06 16:22 person already examined; and the Court shall summon I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 3803 of 2013 (O&M) -2- and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."
Thus, as per the above provision, the Trial Court has ample power to allow production of additional evidence, if it is necessary for the just decision of the case.
In the present case, prosecution by way of additional evidence wants to prove on record seizure memo dated 1.3.2012 with regard to recovery of mobile phone belonging to the deceased which was got recovered at the instance of petitioner No. 1. The case of the prosecution was that the said seizure memo could not be produced earlier due to inadvertence. PW-24 Constable Kayam Khan has been ordered to be recalled for further examination to prove the seizure memo dated 1.3.2012. Petitioner will get an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court had rightly allowed the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as the seizure memo in question was liable to be proved on record as it would be essential to the just decision of the case.
No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 05, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.12.06 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh