JAGIR SINGH SIDHU Vs. HARBEANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revision Petition has been filed against the order 20.3.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) filed by the respondent-complainant for summoning Shri Harchand Singh Gill, Advocate as a witness to prove the service of notice of cancelling the power of attorney given by the respondent in favour of the petitioner has been allowed.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the accused in the Criminal complain titled Harbeant Singh v. Jagir Singh pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. The allegations against petitioner in the complaint are that Harbeant Singh complainant-respondent had appointed the petitioner as his special power of attorney on 21.3.1983. Thereafter he had apprehension that the petitioner was not acting in his interest, as such he got served a registered notice dated 4.4.1989 through his counsel, cancelling the said power or attorney. The petitioner was asked not to act as an attorney of the complainant. However, despite the revocation of the said power of attorney, the petitioner is alleged to have executed a sale deed dated 16.6.1989 and sold a plot including construction measuring 500 sq. yards in village Barewala Awana. It is on these allegations and some other allegations regarding transfer of scooter by the petitioner acting as an attorney of the respondent that the complaint was filed, which is pending.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Magistrate, has totally ignored the provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. which provide that the Court may at any stage summon any person "if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." He contends that the learned trial Magistrate has given no finding in this regard and that the impugned order was passed only on the ground that it would be in the interest of justice to give full opportunity to the party. He further contends that in fact the complainant earlier also filed a similar application dated 21.2.1995 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for adducing additional evidence. In the said application, the complainant prayed for allowing him to appear as his own witness in order to prove the service of the notice dated 4.4.1989 given by his counsel Shri Harchand Singh Gill. The said application was, however, dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 22.7.1995 Annexure P-2 with the observation that the evidence sought to be produced by the complainant was already in his knowledge and as such at a belated stage, the prosecution cannot be allowed to improve its version or fill in the lacuna. It is also contended that Criminal Revision Petition No. 777 of 1995 has already been dismissed by this Court against the aforesaid order dated 22.7.1995 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. It is lastly contended that the proceedings in the case have been pending since 31.10.1991 and the charge was framed on 23.7.1997 and that at such a belated stage, the complainant cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna in its case as it would prejudice his rights under the law.