SOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an accused facing trial in the court of Special Judge CBI, Punjab at Patiala in R. C. No. 17/1992. He has challenged in this petition the order passed by the learned Special Judge on 24-5-1996 by which the application of the prosecution for additional evidence was allowed. The prosecution has alleged in that application that sanction for the prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was granted by the Competent Authority and the sanction order was filed along with the documents when the challan was presented but inadvertently the sanction order could not be mentioned in the list of documents and the name of sanctioning authority could not also be mentioned in the list of witnesses. It is also mentioned in the application that the concluding lines of the report submitted under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Code) mentions that sanction to prosecute the accused was obtained and the same was attached to it. It is further mentioned in that application by the prosecution that because of the unknown reasons the sanction order could not be proved and the prosecution evidence was closed under mistake of facts, and, therefore, it had requested for proving the sanction order by summoning the sanctioning authority. The learned Special Judge allowed the application and as stated earlier this petition is by accused for challenging the same order. The learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up the gaps by virtue of the provisions of Section 311 of the Code and, therefore, the prosecution having closed his evidence cannot be allowed to reopen. The same as the same would amount to filling up. the gaps. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the case Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, as reported in 1988 (2) Recent CR 146. The learned Judge in that case held that when the report of the chemical analysis was produced by the prosecution at the stage of arguments, that the defence counsel pointed out that the report was not admissible as it was not singed by anyone. In these circumstances, it amounted to giving a long handle to the prosecution to patch up the infirmities in this case.

(2.) TO appreciate the provisions of Section 311 of the Code, it would be proper to quote the said section. It is as under:

(3.) IN the case of Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328 : (1965 (1) Cri LJ 350) it has been held that if the persons who had witnessed an incident had been deliberately kept back, the Court may draw an inference against the prosecution and may in a proper case, regard the failure of the prosecution to examine the said witnesses as constituting a serious infirmity in the proof of the prosecution case. In such a case, if the ends of justice require, the court may even examine such witnesses by exercise of its powers under Section 540.