MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners against whom Gaya (Kotwali) P. S. Case No. 49 of 2003 was registered and have been put on trial for charges under Section 25 (I-B) A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 13-12-2007 passed by the learned Sessions judge, Gaya, in Criminal Revision No. 121 of 2007 whereby he while dismissing the revision has upheld the order dated 26-6-2007 passed by Sri Om Sagar, the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya, in the aforesaid P. S. Case, where under he had allowed the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311, Cr. P. C. to examine three prosecution witnesses.

(2.) IT appears that charge was framed against the petitioners on 22-3-2004 whereafter only three prosecution witnesses were examined. Dasti was received by the prosecution for production of the remaining witnesses including the three sought to be examined. It further appears that after affording reasonable opportunity and undue indulgence the prosecution evidence was finally closed on 24-2-2006 and the statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr, P. C. came to be recorded on 3-3-2006. Thereafter the arguments of both sides was heard on 13-11-2006 and even as the trial remained pending for judgment on 2. 2-11-2006 the prosecution filed a petition praying for permitting the examination of the informant, S. I. Sudama Yadav, S. I. Ajay Singh, r. S. N. B. P. Gupta and the seizure list witnesses who could not be examined earlier and as their examination was essential for a just decision in the case which was allowed by the Magistrate by his order dated 26-6-2007.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned orders, of the courts below it was sought to be submitted that by allowing the petition under Section 311, Cr. P. C. after closure of the arguments was to permit the prosecution to fill up the loopholes and lacunae in the prosecution which was neither warranted nor permissible in law. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that the prosecution had neither mentioned why the examination of these witnesses was essential nor was disclosed why they could not be examined earlier which according to the learned counsel were the mandatory requirement in law for reopening a case. It was further submitted that if the orders of the Courts below were allowed to remain the same would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and would percolate injustice.