JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner was proceeded against under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, on a complaint filed by the Government Food Inspector. After the close of the complainant's evidence, the case was adjourned for the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant filed an application of 27th October, 1980, for seeking permission of the Court to examine Shri Parshotam Lal Singla, Clerk to Local Health Authority, Sirsa, on the ground that the statement of the said witness was essential and he had not been examined. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, in whose Court the said case is pending, allowed that application. The Government Food Inspector examined the said witness to prove compliance of section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act. Thereafter the case was fixed for the statement of the accused, defence evidence and arguments on 4th November, 1981. On 4th November, 1981, the statement of the accused was recorded and arguments were heard & the case was adjourned to 7th November, 1981, for orders. However, on 4th November, 1981, the Government Food Inspector filed an application to produce certain judgments this Court in support of his contentions. The case was adjourned for this purpose to 14th November, 1981, 12th December, 1981, 11th February, 1982. On 17th February, 1982, the Government Food Inspector filed another application for recalling & re-examining Parshotam Lal Singla along-with the forwarding letter & receipt of the registered letter, purporting to have been sent to the accused. After hearing the parties the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed that application vide impugned order dated 23rd March, 1982.

(2.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the above order dated 23rd March, 1982, on the ground that though section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives discretion to the Court to summon any person as a witness or to recall and re-examine any person already examined but such power is not intended to full up the lacuna in the prosecution case.

(3.) IN the above opinion of mine I am supported by Narain Singh and another v. The State, 1982(1) C.L.R. 547. In that case the Public Prosecutor moved an application in the Appellate Court under section 391 read with section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning one witness named Mange Ram, Moharrir Head Constable on the ground that when the statement of the said witness was recorded by the Magistrate, he had not brought the relevant records at that time and the evidence was mainly based on records and he had to depose as to when the sample was received by him and when it was sent by him to the Chemical Examiner and, therefore, the examination of that witness was in the interest of justice. The lower Appellate Court allowed that application. Petition was filed in this Court for quashing that order. It was remarked :-