MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri dated 28.5.1987 whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the application filed by the prosecution praying for re-examining one prosecution witness namely PW 6 Shri S.S. Sidhu.

(2.) WHAT happened in this case is that during the continuation of the trial, the prosecution filed the petition before learned Magistrate praying for re-examining Shri S.S. Sidhu P.W. 6 on the ground that certain questions regarding putting impression of the seal of packages were not put inadvertently to the said witness. The defence objected on the ground that this would enable the prosecution to fill up the lacuna and thus would cause injustice to the defence. It appears that after hearing both sides learned Magistrate did not agree with the defence contention to the effect that it would allow an opportunity to the prosecution to fill up the lacuna. On perusal of the record he noticed that the application for the re-examination of the said prosecution witness was filed by the prosecution on 15.4.1987 itself after the witness left the Court after giving his evidence. Learned Magistrate further observed that the re-examination of the said witness would not cause any prejudice to the defence and the defence would get opportunity to further cross-examine the said witness. He is of further opinion that the mistake in putting such questions to the said witness was due to inadvertence on the part of the A.P.P. conducting the case and the said A.P.P. tried to remedy the defect by filing the petition on the day of the examination of the said witness.

(3.) ON examination of the papers it appears that the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in allowing the application of the prosecution for re- examination of the prosecution witness namely PW 6. The prosecution filed the petition for re-examination on the day of his examination immediately after the evidence was given and the witness left the Court. The application for re-examination was, however, considered a few days later. Nevertheless the fact remains that the APP was prompt enough to notice the inadvertence in not putting certain questions to the prosecution witness. I agree with his view that no prejudice would be caused to the defence inasmuch as the defence would get full opportunity to cross-examine the said witness once again. Accordingly I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in allowing the petition of the prosecution and directing re-summoning of the witness PW 6. I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.