CHIMNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 528 BNSS against the order dtd. 6/3/2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the evidence of two witnesses, who were summoned under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., namely Vinod Prakash Simalti and Dr. D.K. Mathela, has been closed.

(2.) The petitioner is the informant in the present case, at whose instance the FIR came to be registered. The case pertains to an alleged forged mark-sheet of the 10th standard filed by the respondent-accused, who was a candidate in the Zila Parishad election in the year 2015.

(3.) After investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused. Upon framing of charges, the prosecution evidence was concluded. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Sec. 311 Cr. P.C. seeking to summon two witnesses, namely Vinod Kumar and Dr. D.K. Mathela. It was stated that Vinod Kumar had furnished information under the Right to Information Act, and Dr. D.K. Mathela had filed an affidavit in Civil Writ Petition No. 4546/2015 concerning the mark-sheet in question. It was contended that the said witnesses were necessary for proving the documents already placed on record by the petitioner.