JOGENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 24.08.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") moved by the prosecution has been allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR.No.219 dated 28.06.2015 was registered under Sections 323, 341, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Beri, Distt. Jhajjar. After a period of 3 years of trial, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution for calling Amit Kumar, DSP Rohtak and Dr. Ishwar Singh, PGI MS, Rohtak as prosecution witnesses, just to fill up the lacuna, whereas Amit Kumar DSP, Rohtak had neither investigated the matter nor he was related to the case in any manner. Learned counsel further submits that there is no document available on record bearing signatures of said DSP Amit Kumar relating to investigation of the case. Dr. Ishwar Singh might have given his opinion way back in January, 2017. The prosecution has tried to call these witnesses in the witness box to prove the documents which are not part of record. Learned counsel also submits that object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not to fill up the lacuna left by the prosecution but to advance justice. While passing the impugned order, the delay in moving the application has not been considered. The intention of the prosecution is not only to delay the trial proceedings but to fill up the lacuna.

(3.) Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order, whereby application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been allowed.