High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Shinda @ Sikandar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shinda @ Sikandar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 March, 2009
Criminal Misc. No.M-6534 of 2009 (O&M)                 1

      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                        Criminal Misc. No.M-6534 of 2009 (O&M)
                        Date of decision: 6.3.2009


Shinda @ Sikandar Singh

                                                   ......Petitioner

                        Versus



State of Punjab and another

                                                 .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:    Mr.G.S.Sidhu , Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

                 ****


SABINA, J.

This petition has been filed by Shinda @ Sikander Singh

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for

short) for setting aside the order dated 8.2.2008 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana and the order dated

20.1.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in

revision.

FIR No. 83 dated 5.6.1996 was registered at Police

Sation Sahnewal under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326/34 of the Indian

Penal Code on the basis of the statement of Bachan Singh-
Criminal Misc. No.M-6534 of 2009 (O&M) 2

complainant. After investigation, challan was only presented against

the petitioner and his co-accused Babli and Lali were declared

innocent. The complainant filed a complaint on 10.8.1996. On

10.9.1996 a supplementary statement of the complainant was

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, prosecution moved

an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of the

complainant on the basis of the supplementary statement made by

him.

Vide order dated 8.2.2008, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,

Ludhiana, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same was dismissed

by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated

20.1.2009. Hence, the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at a belated stage was liable

to be dismissed as prosecution could not be allowed to fill up lacuna

in its case. The supplementary statement had been recorded after

much delay.

As per Section 311 Cr.P.C. any Court may at any stage of

trial examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a

witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined and

the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any

such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just

decision of the case.

Criminal Misc. No.M-6534 of 2009 (O&M) 3

Thus, the trial Court was empowered to summon any

person as a witness during trial for re-examination. So far as the

accused are concerned, they will get opportunity to cross-examine

the complainant, who is now sought to be re-examined by the

prosecution in view of the his supplementary statement.

In these circumstances, the impugned orders passed by

the Courts below, call for no interference.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(SABINA)
JUDGE
March 06, 2009
anita