DAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to the order dated 1.3.2012 (Annexure P -3), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, whereby the application presented by the State for summoning of the record and the witnesses in additional evidence was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that the petitioner/complainant would suffer irreparable loss if the application for leading additional evidence is not allowed; no new material has to be placed on record; the medico legal and X -ray reports are already available on the Court file; and that it was the fault of the concerned Station House Officer who did not notice while preparing the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., that Dr. Anil Saluja, who had conducted the radiological examination of the injured, was an essential witness. He also argued that if the material witness had left India and gone to foreign country, in that eventuality, there was no fault of the prosecution in withholding the said witness.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented on 17.1.2008 and the charges were framed on 2.9.2008. Thereafter, numerous opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to conclude its evidence, but in spite of affording nine last opportunities, the prosecution could not complete its evidence, however, in the interest of justice the learned Trial Court should have allowed the application for leading additional evidence.