- (1.) G. D. Dube, J. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a prayer has been made that the order dated 12th May, 1992 passed by the Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra be quashed and the' document sought to be filed may be admitted.
(2.) THE facts of this case lie in a very short compass. A Sessions Trial No. 63 of 1988, State v. Virendra and others, is pending before the court of Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra. An application was moved on behalf of the applicant before the Sessions Judge requesting that the final report of the police and the report lodged by the accused be summoned. It was also prayed that the order of the revisional court arising from the order of the Magistrate refusing the final report and summoning the applicant be also permitted to be filed. THE learned Sessions Judge rejected this application and this has given rise to the present application. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was only praying for admission of certain document and these documents shall assist the trial court in coming to the conclusion about the guilt of the opposite party. My attention was drawn to the wording of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under : "311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other pro ceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendence, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined ; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and recxamiae any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. " It was urged that if it appears to the court trying the case that the admission of certain document is essential to the just decision of the case then the Court should receive it. Such exercise of discretion is almost in the nature of a mandatory provisions.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the opposite party Sri M. D. Singh urged that the sole intention of the applicant is to delay the proceeding. Even though the applicant was in the possession of the certified copy of the order dated 3rd. May, 1989 in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 1989-Sunil v. State, & prayer was made that prosecution may be permitted to apply for certified copy and file it. It was urged that the evidence sought to be adduced in trial will not have any effect because the prosecution will have to stand on its own legs. The above quoted Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives discretion to the Session Judge to admit any evidence at any stage of trial in the interest of justice. It does not give any discretion to the prose cution or the complainant to adduce any evidence whenever it likes to do so. In the present case some of the arguments had been advanced. The application was moved at fag end. The evidence pertains to cross case was not going to have any material effect in the trial. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge had considered this aspect of the matter and has rightly rejected the application. The prosecution had no scope for adducing this evidence be cause this evidence arose from a cross-case and even in a trial such an evidence could not be adduced by the prosecutor.;