L.N.MITTAL,J. - (1.)ACCUSED Gurmit Ram has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 21.05.2013 Annexure P-1 passed by trial Court thereby allowing prosecution application Annexure P-2 filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for summoning and examining Junior Engineer (JE) Prem Singh as witness in FIR No.35 dated 05.10.2009 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
(2.)I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, the accused was found to have tampered with his electricity meter. Prem Singh, JE is to be examined to depose that he had removed the electric meter in question on 30.03.2009.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that prosecution evidence stood closed by order dated 07.05.2013 Annexure P-3 and, therefore, impugned order allowing the prosecution to examine Prem Singh, JE as witness amounts to review of the order Annexure P-3 which is not permissible. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Singh versus State of Haryana, 2002(1) CLJ (Criminal) 295. It was also argued that the prosecution in the garb of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to fill in lacunae in its case.

(3.)I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions which cannot be accepted. Prem Singh, JE was not cited as witness inadvertently. Consequently allowing examination of Prem Singh, JE as witness by impugned order Annexure P-1 does not amount to review of order Annexure P-3 whereby prosecution evidence was closed by Court order. While closing the prosecution evidence by order dated 07.05.2013 Annexure P-3, door of the prosecution for examining Prem Singh, JE was not closed because he was not cited as witness in the list of witnesses. It subsequently came to notice that Prem Singh had not been cited as witness and therefore, application Annexure P-2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C was moved.