SURINDER KUMAR Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS was a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.") for allowing the petitioner -complainant/ prosecution to produce evidence that was closed by the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in case First Information Report No.262 dated 05.12.2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "I.P.C.") registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE submissions made by Mr. Rajiv Kataria, learned counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. Amandeep Singh, Public Prosecutor for U.T., Chandigarh and Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned senior counsel representing respondent no.2 have been heard.

(3.) IT was submitted by the petitioner -complainant that on the basis of the final report filed by the prosecution charge sheet was served on the accused on 11.10.2010. The charge happened to be defective being different from the facts on file, therefore, on an application filed by him under Section 216 Cr.P.C. on 19.12.2012, the charge was formally amended by the trial court in the middle of the year 2013. Practically the trial started after the amendment of the charge in May, 2013. Thereafter, an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation of case was filed by him on 21.08.2013 which was decided on 31.05.2014 by learned Magistrate. Even when the application was pending, statements of witnesses of the prosecution were recorded. Out of 25 witnesses, eight witnesses had been recorded and ultimately on 07.08.2014 the evidence of the prosecution was closed by way of court order.