SALMAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition has been filed against the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition No. 52/2014 preferred against the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District in Criminal Case No. 68/2011 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling Shri Dalbir Bharti, DCP Headquarter and District Magistrate, Mumbai as defence witness was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.1998, one Shri Lalit Bora filed a report at P.S. Luni, Jodhpur against the petitioner stating that the petitioner hunted two black bucks by using illegal fire arms in the mid -night of 1 -2 October, 1998 at Village Kakani. On the basis of the above report, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge -sheet was filed and charges were framed. After examination of 16 prosecution witnesses, the statements of petitioner -accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after examination of one Berisal Singh (DW -1) as defence witness, the defence evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for 16.12.2014 for final arguments, on that date, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial court stating therein that on 29.09.1999, the licensing authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner to the effect as to why his Arm License No. MU -926/August/96 should not be cancelled to which the petitioner filed reply. It was submitted that as per the notice, the license of the petitioner was valid till 29.09.1999 and was in force. Thus, it was prayed that the said authority, viz., Shri Dalbir Bharti, DCP, Police HQ and District Magistrate, Mumbai be called as defence witness. The said application was dismissed and revision petition was also dismissed. Hence, this miscellaneous petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) IN the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the prosecution admits the genuineness of the notice and the trial court considers the same during final arguments, then this miscellaneous petition may be decided accordingly.