RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) PRAYER in the present petition, filed under Section 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, under Section 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, under Section 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. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that the learned trial Court committed a serious error of law and jurisdiction. It treated the application, filed under Section 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.
(3.) 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.;