JAGIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been instituted against the order dtd. 19/11/2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C has been rejected.

(2.) At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and revision against the same is not maintainable, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(5) RCR (Criminal) 512 titled Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam and the only remedy with the petitioner is to assail the same by way of a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. However, in the interest of justice, present revision petition is treated as a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C and same be accordingly registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C was moved to examine Dr. Surinder Pal Singh, who had medico legally examined one of the victims namely Jagir Kaur. The aforesaid doctor could not be cited as a witness in the final report submitted by the police, as a result of which, he was not examined. However his examination is essential for just decision of the case and he may thus be allowed to be examined. Learned counsel further submits that trial Court has the power to summon any person as a witness whose evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case and since the doctor who conducted the MLR is a material witness, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application. In case, he is not allowed to be examined, the MLR of injured Jagir Kaur shall remain unproved, which will seriously prejudice the case of the prosecution and learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside.