IQBAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed to challenge order dated 18.4.2012, whereby, the prosecution evidence has been closed by order of the Court and an application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Ambala Cantt. has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier an application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning of three witnesses i.e. Hira Lal Gupta, State President, Akhil Bhartiya Banodhia Vaish Mahasabha Haryana, 2585, Near S.D. College Hostel, Ambala Cantt, Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, B.C. Bazar, Ambala Cantt and the competent official of Municipal Corporation, Ambala at Ambala City, which was allowed vide order dated 17.1.2012 but only two witnesses, namely, Hira Lal Gupta and Clerk of Municipal Corporation, Ambala were ordered to be summoned, whereas, Principal of the School was not summoned. Thereafter another application was moved for summoning of third witness i.e. Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Ambala Cantt, which was dismissed only on the ground that second application is not maintainable for the same cause of action and in case one witness was not ordered to be summoned in the earlier order then the remedy to challenge that order should have been availed. Learned counsel further submits that there is no bar under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as any witness can be called at any stage of the trial, inquiry or proceedings but the application has wrongly been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that in the earlier application, no order for summoning of third witness i.e. Principal was passed and accordingly second application is maintainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that petitioner was having remedy to challenge the order passed in the earlier application in case only two witnesses were summoned but the petitioner has not availed any remedy to challenge that order. Learned counsel further contends that the subsequent application has been moved just to fill up the lacunae because the evidence has been ordered to be closed by the order of the Court.