LOONDAN & OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed against the order passed on 27.9.82 by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri. By that order the learned Magistrate allowed the application under section 311 Cr. P.C. filed by the prosecution and permitted the prosecutor to examine two witnesses Bakhtawar Singh and Gangasingh with an order that he would bring the witnesses himself. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the learned Magistrate has abused the process of the Court by allowing the application. The reason advanced by the learned counsel is that as back as on 13.11.82. the prosecution evidence was closed, but subsequent thereto an application under section 311 Cr. P C. was filed and Kishensingh was allowed to be examined as prosecution witness. That, again at the request of Public Prosecutor Hanumansingh was examined by the Court. The learned counsel contended that on 24.9.82 the prosecution evidence was closed but on the same day an application under section 311 Cr.P C. was filed with the request that Gangasingh and Bakhtawarsingh may be examined and the Court by the impugned order allowed the prayer. The learned counsel stressed that this type of indulgence given by the court to the prosecution amount to filling up the lacuna of the prosecution and therefore requires interference by this court.

(2.) The provision of the section 311 Crimial P.C. are to be applied if the court is satisfied that examination of the particular witnesses is necessary for the just decision of the case. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the powers vested by that seen on are not unfettered and are to be judicially exercised. At the same time merely because the prosecution has closed evidence and the filing of the application under section 311 Crimial P.C. subsequent there to it cannot be said that the court was allowing the filling up the lacuna. In the impugned order the learned Magistrate has stated the interference of the witnesses to be examined. It has also been assumed that the prosecution has stated that it was after the statement of Harnamsingh that the necessity of examining these witnesses came in view of the prosecution. There is no fixed time for the exercise of power under section 311 Cr.P.C. the power may be exercised at any stage if the court considers it necessary for the just decision of the case.

(3.) In this case the facts and circumstances of the case do not show that the court has committed any error in allowing the application under section 311 Cr.P.C, filed by the prosecution. I do not consider it an abuse of the process of the court so as to call for any interference by this court in exercise of its inherent powers. The petition is therefore dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.