SARDAR IQBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sachin Chopra for respondent no. 2.

(2.) BY means of this fresh petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 13-2- 2007 (Annexure No. 13 to the petition) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2007, whereby the order dated 7-12-2006 (Annexure No. 12 to the petition) passed by Special Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, in Complaint Case No. 1615 of 2004, Sardar Iqbal Singh Vs. Anil Sharma, was affirmed.

(3.) ASSUMING for a moment that this Court can entertain a petition under Sec tion 482 of Cr. P. C. in the matter, still, there is yet another hurdle on the way of the petitioner. The petitioner wanted the trial court to exercise its powers under Section 311 of Cr. P. C. to summon a fingerprint and handwriting expert. It is settled principle of law that the pow ers under Section 311 of Cr. P. C. cannot be exercised only to fill the lacuna in the prosecution evidence. A copy of the statement of P. W. 1 Sardar Iqbal Singh shows that in the cross-examination, there was a suggestion from the defence that in the disputed cheque (Ext. A-2), complainant has got interpolation done by mentioning '2004' in place of '2001'. As such, the complainant was aware of the case of the defence and he opted not to adduce evidence of any finger print and hand writing expert from the side of the complainant. It is only after the defence evidence is closed and the case was listed for arguments when the peti tioner woke up and moved the applica tion. In the opinion of this Court, in the circumstances, the attempt on the part of the complainant was only to fill the lacuna in the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the case of V. T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Fateh Singh Mohan Singh Chauhan (2006) 7 SCC page 529. The facts of the said case were different and in that case the ap plication of the prosecution was allowed to examine the witness, a collector, with regard to whom the accused had taken the plea that he had a meeting (with Col lector) at the time of the incident and the accused got examined two witnesses to support their plea of alibi. The Col lector was the most important person, who could have stated whether he met those persons at that relevant point of time or not. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that it was not a case of filling of lacuna from the side of the prosecution. However, the facts of this case are different. As such, the referred case law is of no help to the complain ant.