RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. NARCOTIC CELL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Can a trial Court permit lacuna in prosecution evidence filled up The conventional concept is that the Court should not do so. But then, what is meant by lacuna in a prosecution case, has to be understood before deciding the said question one way or the other.

(3.) The present case provides an occasion to decide the said question. Appellant is now facing trial along with certain other persons before a Court of sessions for offences under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Appellant is now on bail pursuant to an order granted by the High Court of Delhi. As the trial proceeded almost to the end when the prosecution and the defence closed their evidence on 19-9-1997, the case was posted for further steps. Nevertheless, subsequently, the case stood posted to some other days also. On 7-3-1998, at the instance of the prosecution two of the witnesses, who were already examined, were re-summoned for the purpose of proving certain documents for prosecution. They were further examined and the evidence was once again closed and the case was posted for hearing arguments. It appears that arguments were heard in piecemeal on different days. On 7-6-1998, the Public Prosecutor moved an application seeking permission to examine PW-21 (Dalip Singh-SI) and two other persons. Though the application was stoutly opposed by the accused's counsel the trial Court allowed it in exercise of its power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') and summons were issued to the witnesses as per its order dated 8-1-1999. The relevant portion of that order of the trial Court is the following: