RAGHUNATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a charge-sheet for prosecuting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 was filed in the Court of the trial Magistrate on 29-7-1977. The charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against him on 12-2-1979. It is reported that the prosecution closed their evidence on 10-7-1996. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Assistant Public Prosecutor who was In-charge of the prosecution, moved an application under Section 311 Cr. P.C. requesting the learned Magistrate to summon Amarnath Purohit and Ratanalal as the witnesses in this case. This application was allowed to the extent of Ratanlal witness only. The said Ratanlal was also examined. It is reported that the accused was to be examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on 11-7-1996. But the Assistant Public Prosecutor again moved an application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. for summoning three more witnesses namely, Omprakash Sharma, Ram Gopal and Shyam Lal. Out of' these three witnesses, Omprakash Sharma was to depose that he had taken the specimen signature of the accused for getting them compared with his admitted signatures by an expert. The rest of the two witnesses were Investigating Officers in the case. By his impugned order dated 7-11-1996, the learned Magistrate allowed the said application to the extent of Omprakash Sharma only. Aggrieved by such order of the learned Magistrate, the accused has moved this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Magan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) 2 WLN 188, Battada Ponapa Apachu v. State of Rajasthan, (1985) 1 WLN 342, Virendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 WLN 171 and Ganpath Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Raj Cri C 41, wherein it was held that the provisions contained in Section 311, Cr. P.C. were meant to enable the Court to arrive at truth and not to fill up gaps and lacunas in the prosecution case, vehemently urged that the impugned order not. only impairs the fundamental right of the accused petitioner for speedy and fair trial but also that it amounts to filling up lacunas in prosecution case and therefore, promotes abuse of the process of the Court rather than to secure the ends of justice.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor supporting the impugned order submitted that since the witness allowed to be examined by the Court was a material witness in the case and the learned Magistrate has exercised the discretion vested with him under Section 311 , Cr. P.C. in judicial manner, the impugned order should not be disturbed.