SUDERSHANA THAREJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is facing trial arising out of FIR No.718 dated 12.12.2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City, Karnal, has filed the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C for challenging the order dated 12.9.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination/re-summoning of PW-4 Mahinder Singh, Estate Manager, was allowed.

(2.) Aforementioned Mahinder Singh was examined-in-chief by the prosecution as PW-4 on 9.4.2011. His cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the accused. It was on 13.7.2012 that Mahinder Singh was cross-examined. After the entire prosecution evidence was led, the case was fixed for recording of statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.when an application under Section 311 read with Section 242(2) Cr.P.C was filed by the prosecution for re-examination of Mahinder Singh on the ground that the complaint lodged by him could not be exhibited inadvertently and due to bulk of cases. Reply to the said application was filed by all the accused, including the petitioner. After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide impugned order allowed the aforementioned application and summoned PW-4 Mahinder Singh for 27.9.2013 for further examination.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, this Court finds that though PW-4 Mahinder Singh had deposed about having submitted the complaint but the said complaint could not be exhibited. The reason given for not exhibiting the complaint was inadvertence and due to rush of work. Exhibition of the original complaint is found to be material for just adjudication of the case. Merely, because PW-4 Mahinder Singh being allowed to exhibit the complaint lodged by him, cannot be said to be an attempt by the prosecution to fill in the lacuna in its case. Moreover, the prosecution evidence was concluded on 19.3.2013 and, thereafter, the trial was fixed for recording of statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 26.4.2013, the statements of the accused could not be recorded on account of an adjournment sought by the defence counsel. On the next date, once again, recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C had to be deferred as one of the accused had sought exemption from personal appearance. On the next date of hearing i.e. 2.7.2013, the prosecution came up with the application under Section 311 read with Section 242 (2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution had filed the application in question after a long delay. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs State of Bihar and another, 2013 3 RCR(Cri) 726 does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as this Court is of the view that the trial Court has judiciously exercised its discretion by allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 read with Section 242 (2) Cr.P.C.