KAMALKANT PURI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant case is to order dated 30.3.2016, passed by the trial court, whereby application moved by the prosecution for examining the complainant as prosecution witness, has been allowed. Mr. Cheema, learned senior counsel has assailed the order. According to him, despite numerous opportunities granted to the complainant, he did not appear. Court tried to procure his presence by issuing non-bailable warrants as well as initiating proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, evidence was closed by order on 8.2.2016. According to him, prosecution is merely trying to fill up lacunae in the case, which is at the stage of culmination. He has relied upon judgment Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India and another, 1991 AIR(SC) 1346 and Budh Ram Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 2 RCR(Cri) 270 .

(2.) During the course of trial the complainant failed to depose before the trial court despite numerous opportunities. It even issued non-bailable warrants for securing his presence. On his failure to appear, proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated. Ultimately, the prosecution evidence was closed by order on 8.2.2016. Thereafter, statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. At this stage, instant application was moved by the prosecution seeking to examine the complainant as a witness. Trial court allowed the application observing that the witness had put in appearance on his own and prosecution wanted to examine him. Being complainant, his evidence was necessary for just decision of the case.

(3.) In the instant case, though the petitioner failed to depose before the court despite its best efforts and evidence of the prosecution was closed vide order dated 8.2.2016, he himself appeared before the trial court and prosecution moved an application seeking to examine him. I am of the considered view that examination of complainant even at the fag end of the trial, would not amount to filling up lacunae in the prosecution case. On the other hand, his deposition may be necessary for arriving at a just decision. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the present petition. Same is hereby dismissed.