9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in statements of witnesses examined from either side. The exercise of widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts and if evidence of any witness appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case, the same should be exercised. Petition dismissed. - CRM-M-15321-2019 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 19-9-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR. Present : Mr. Akhil Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the respondent. * * * NAMIT KUMAR , J. (Oral) : This order of mine shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRMM No.15321 of 2019 and CRM-M No.15767 of 2019 as the issue involved in both the petitions is the same. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CRM-M No.15321 of 2019. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of order dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence and it has not been mentioned in the application as to how and why the necessity arose to examine those witnesses at this stage. A witness, who was not deemed necessary by the complainant while leading preliminary evidence, cannot be termed as a necessary witness after appearance of the accused. Hence, the application of the complainant is found without any merit and the same is hereby, dismissed, without prejudice to the merit of the case. Earlier the case was fixed for evidence of the complainant. On request adjourned to 02.07.2018 for entire evidence of the complainant, subject to last opportunity. Sumit Bhalla, Chief Judicial Magistrate Tarn Taran-17.05.2018 The complainant-respondent preferred a revision petition against the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran. The revision petition was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2019 and two effective opportunities were granted to the complainant-respondent to examine the said witnesses and it was further ordered that the petitioner, if desires, to cross-examine the complainant, on the basis of new material produced, it is open to him to take a motion before the Court. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Section 311 in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another reported as 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 726 has held as under :- 3. By a short order dated 18.11.09, passed in Sessions Trial No. 425 of 2009, the trial Court disallowed the applications of the Respondents filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), to re- examine PW-9, the informant. The High Court directed the trial Court to allow the 2nd Respondent to examine himself as a witness on a specified date by its order dated 9.12.2010. xx xx xx xx 23. From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind by the Courts: a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case? b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party. n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. xx xx xx xx 30. In the light of the above conclusion, applying the various principles set out above, we are convinced that the order of the trial Court impugned before the High Court did not call for any interference in any event behind the back of the appellant herein. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The order impugned dated 9.12.2010, passed in Crl. M.P. 12454/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
