LAWS(P&H)-2001-8-30

NIRMAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On August 24, 2001
NIRMAL D/O MANOHAR LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by accused-petitioner Nirmal, seeking the quashment of the order dated 23-9-2000, passed by Shri L. R. Roojam, Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, allowing the application for additional evidence filed by the State.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that the complaint filed by Smt. Prem Lata, before the Judicial Magistrate, was sent to the Police under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and on the basis thereof, FIR No. 44 dated 12-3-1998, under Sections 306/34, IPC was registered in Police Station, City Hoshiarpur. It was alleged that after completion of the investigation, challan under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. On receipt of the case in the Sessions Court, all the three accused were charged under Section 306, IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC. After the entire prosecution evidence had been led, the statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. had been recorded and the case was at the stage of defence evidence and arguments, the prosecution filed application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to tender in evidence the report of the handwriting expert by way of additional evidence. The said application was opposed by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides and after purusing the record, had allowed the said application of the prosecution and allowed the prosecution to tender in evidence the report of the handwriting expert by way of additional evidence, vide order dated 23-9-2000. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Sessions Judge, one of the accused namely, Nirmal, has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in this Court.

(3.) In the petition, it has been alleged that after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence and recording the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., when the case was at the defence stage, the prosecution had moved the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C., copy Annexed P-1, to which the accused had filed the reply, copy Annexure-P-2, opposing the said application. It was alleged that the learned trial Court had allowed the said application, vide order dated 23-9-2000 and had ordered that the report of the handwriting expert shall be allowed to be tendered in evidence. It was alleged that the order dated 23-9-2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, was contrary to law inasmuch as the report of the handwriting expert could not be taken into evidence per se, without examining the handwriting expert and allowing the opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said expert. It was further alleged that even otherwise the prosecution could not be allowed to fill up the lacuna especially when even the statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. had already been recorded and the production of additional evidence by the prosecution, at this stage, would prejudice the accused.