Rajive Bhalla, J.@mdashPrayer in the present petition, filed u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., is for quashing the orders dated 16.8.2002 and 23.11.2002
(Annexures P-1 and P-3), passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. Vide order dated 16.8.2002, the evidence of the
prosecution was closed by order, whereas vide order dated 23.11.2002, an application, filed by the complainant, u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C., was
dismissed.
2. Vide order dated 16.8.2002, the learned trial Court closed evidence, as despite numerous opportunities, the prosecution could not conclude its
evidence. The prosecution, thus, failed to examine the Investigating Officer, the doctor and an eye witness to the occurrence. The
petitioner/complainant filed an application, u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C., praying for liberty to examine the aforementioned witnesses. This application
was dismissed, holding that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to review its order closing evidence.
3. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that the learned trial Court committed a serious error of law and jurisdiction. It treated the
application, filed u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C., as an application for review. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. does not prohibit a Court from allowing
additional evidence, even after it has ordered closure of evidence, provided it appears to the Court that the evidence, sought to be adduced, is
necessary for a just decision of the case. The learned trial Court, however, did not appreciate the merits of the application and declined
interference on an erroneous presumption that the application filed would entail a review of the order dated 16.8.2002. It is, therefore, prayed that
as the evidence, sought to be adduced, is necessary for a just decision of the case, the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders
quashed.
4. Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 vehemently contends that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law and fact. As evidence
was closed by order, the trial Court rightly held that it had no jurisdiction to review its order, dated 16.8.2002 and, therefore, the present petition
be dismissed.
5. Counsel for the State of Haryana does not oppose the prayer, made in the present petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.
7. On 16.8.2002, the trial Court ordered closure of prosecution evidence, for its failure to conclude evidence, despite numerous opportunities. The
petitioner, who is the complainant, filed an application, u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C., praying for permission to lead additional evidence. The trial Court
dismissed the application holding that it had no jurisdiction to review its order dated 16.8.2002 directing closure of the prosecution evidence.
8. The trial Court, in my considered opinion, erred in jurisdiction and in law, while dismissing the application. It erroneously construed that
acceptance of an application, filed u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C., would require it to review its order, dated 16.8.2002. This inference, in my considered
opinion, is unwarranted and unsustainable in law. Powers, conferred upon a Court, u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C., are in no manner circumscribed by an
order directing closure of evidence. The expressions ""at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Cr.P.C."" appearing in Section
311 of the Cr.P.C. clearly suggest that this power can be invoked by a Court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the
Cr.P.C., subject, however, to an over-riding principle that the evidence, sought to be adduced, should appear to the Court to be essential for a
just decision of the case, the paramount consideration being ""just decision of a case"". To, therefore, construe an order directing closure of evidence
as a bar to the exercise of powers, u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C. to be an application for review of the order closing evidence, in my considered opinion,
would be unwarranted. Such an interpretation to the provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., does not flow from the language used therein. The
learned trial Court, therefore, committed an error of jurisdiction and law, while dismissing the application, filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the
present petition is allowed and the order dated 23.11.2002 is set aside. The learned trial Court shall consider and decide the application, filed by
the petitioner/complainant, u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C., afresh, in accordance with law. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before
the trial Court on 9.10.2006.