BATTDA PONAPPA APACHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 29th Oct. 1983, passed by the CJM, Kota, granting the application of the prosecution filed Under Section 311, Cr. P.C. by the order aforesaid, the court granted permission to the prosecution to examine further witnesses.

(2.) BRIEFLY narrated the facts of the case are that the Senior Inspector, Factories and Boilers, Kota, inspected M/s Shriram Rayons, Kota, on 3rd and 4th March, 1976. After inspection, he prepared a report Ex. P. 8. The inspector, in his statement, has admitted that the report prepared by him is Ex. P. 8. There is no other report on the record of the case. So, Ex. P. 8 is the only report of inspection by the Senior on 3rd and 4th March 1976. After the said inspection, a complaint was filed by the Senior Inspector in the court of CJM, Kota, against the petitioner. Along with that complaint, a list of witnesses as required by Section 204(ii), Cr. P.C., was also filed. According to that list, Bankey Lal Agarwal, Senior Inspector, Factories and Boilers alone was cited as witness. After registering the said complaint, the CJM started proceedings in this case. The prosecution examined Bankeylal Agarwal on 5th May, 1978; and the complainant closed his evidence. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence. After examining the defence witnesses, the evidence of the accused was closed on 20th August, 1983 and the case was fixed for final arguments. Then, on 27th Aug. 1983, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the complainant, submitted an application Under Section 311, Cr. P.C., and requested the court to grant them permission to adduce further evidence on behalf of the complainant. That application was accepted by the learned CJM, Kota, on 29th Oct. 1983, against which, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor argued that the court has ample power to grant permission to examine witnesses at any stage, in the interest of justice. According to him, even at the time of hearing final arguments, if the court feel that it is necessary to examine certain witnesses to arrive at a correct conclusion, such permission can be granted to record statements of those persons. He argued that, in the present case, no doubt, the case was fixed for final arguments, but, the learned CJM correctly found that in the interest of justice, the persons named in the application filed Under Section 311, Cr. P.C., should be examined. In support of his aforesaid contention, he cited the case of Jamatraj v. State of Maharashtra : 1968CriLJ231 .