SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this revision are that Sukhdev Singh petitioner is facing trial in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. The prosecution dosed its evidence against the petitioner on 22nd of April, 1981. He was examined under Section 313 of Criminal P. C, 1973 on 29th of April, 1981. The defence was closed by him on 20th of July, 1981 On 23rd of July, 1981, the prosecution filed an application in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 1979 decided on 24th of February, 1981, reported as Atma Singh v. State of Punjab, 1981 Chand Cri C 181 (Punj and Har), for examining the Clerk of the office of the Chemical Examiner to prove that the sample had reached in that office with seals intact and that the sample was handed over to the Chemical Examiner in that very condition. The application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur noticed Santokh Singh v. State of Haryana 1975 Chand LR (Cri) 119, in which it was laid down that the prosecution cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna, but he, however, allowed the prosecution to examine the Clerk of the office of the Chemical Examiner or the production of his affidavit to complete the link in the evidence in view of the judgment in Atma Singh's case (supra ).

(2.) THE petitioner did not feel satisfied with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and has filed this revision, which, straightway at the motion hearing, was admitted to a Division Bench.

(3.) SHRI Bachittar Singh Giani, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution cannot be permitted to fill in a lacuna in its evidence at a late stage of the case when it is fixed only for arguments. He has sought help from The King v. Dore Harris (1927) 2 KB 587, State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram and Santokh Singh v. State of Haryana 1975 Chand LR (Cri) 119, to urge that once in a case the prosecution evidence is closed and the case reaches the final stage, the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up the gaps in its case by allowing the examination of evidence, which it could tender at the trial before closing its case.