State vs S.B. Saxena on 4 August, 1972
2. Against the above order the present revision petition has been filed by the State. The contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that the lower court has erred in law in not accepting the prosecution prayer, made under Section 540, Cr. P.C. and that such rejection is likely to result in miscarriage o' justice. The court below should have, counsel adds, apt lied its judicial mind to the phrase "at any stage", appearing in Section 540 Cr. P C. This phrase includes the stage even when evidence of both the sides has been closed and the case has been adjourned for judgment. The production of the postal record, as prayed for, would have falsified the defence plea raised by the accused Under the second part of Section 540, Cr. P.C. it was mandatory for the trial court to summon or examine or recall the witnesses along with the connected record. Learned Counsel, in support of his arguments, cited State v. Jamna Das AIR 1958 NUC30, Ranjeet v. The State , and Shreelal Kajaria v. The State AIR 1864 Bom 186. The contention of learned Counsel for the State was opposed with unusual emphasis by Mr. M.B.L. Bhargava, representing accused S.B. Saxena.