SHAMS ANWAR ALIAS GUDDU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 as also the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.2003 passed by the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2003 preferred by Opposite Party no. 2, up setting the order dated 25.2.2003 passed by the Judl. Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur in G.R. Case No. 161 of 2000. The Judicial Magistrate having allowed the application of the prosecution for production of the material exhibit, the weapon in question, in exercise of the powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court erred in law by not appreciating that the weapon in question had been seized on the date of the occurrence itself and seizure -list was prepared. The seizure -list had already been duly exhibited. These were issues which have not been discussed by the revisional court. In view of the fact that the seizure of the weapon was corroborated by the seizure -list which also stood proved, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to Opposite Party no. 2 by production of the exhibit. Section 311. of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised at any stage of the trial upon the satisfaction of the court that it was necessary in the ends of justice. In the given facts of the case it was not an attempt to filling up the lacuna.