- (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to the order dated 1.3.2012 (Annexure P -3), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, whereby the application presented by the State for summoning of the record and the witnesses in additional evidence was dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that the petitioner/complainant would suffer irreparable loss if the application for leading additional evidence is not allowed; no new material has to be placed on record; the medico legal and X -ray reports are already available on the Court file; and that it was the fault of the concerned Station House Officer who did not notice while preparing the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., that Dr. Anil Saluja, who had conducted the radiological examination of the injured, was an essential witness. He also argued that if the material witness had left India and gone to foreign country, in that eventuality, there was no fault of the prosecution in withholding the said witness.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented on 17.1.2008 and the charges were framed on 2.9.2008. Thereafter, numerous opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to conclude its evidence, but in spite of affording nine last opportunities, the prosecution could not complete its evidence, however, in the interest of justice the learned Trial Court should have allowed the application for leading additional evidence. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the Court has not only to watch the interest of the complainant/prosecution, but due regard has to be given to the life and liberty of the accused as well. He further submits that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 7.9.2007 and thereafter the charge -sheet was presented in the month of January, 2008 and since then the accused are continuously facing the trial. He further submits that after affording more than adequate opportunities to the prosecution including nine last opportunities, the learned Trial Court was constrained to close the prosecution evidence by order. He further submits that in spite of all the above facts, the learned Trial Court allowed the first application for leading additional evidence, but the complainant/prosecution could not lead their entire additional evidence and, as such, the learned Court below has rightly closed the prosecution evidence and rejected the second application for leading additional evidence. He further submits that with the sole object of delaying the trial, the applications for leading additional evidence are being moved one after the other by the complainant or the prosecution, therefore, the present petition is sheer abuse of the process of law and the same may be dismissed with costs.;