A.C.GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by accused petitioner is directed against the impugned order dated 13.8.2002, whereby an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the accused persons in Sessions Case No. 45/01, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun City.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel and learned Public Prosecutor. It was argued that the accused petitioner also filed a complaint against the opposite party for causing grievous injury by sharp weapon to the accused petitioner Atar Singh and it was necessary to prove injury report in defence of this case, therefore, the application for summoning two doctors Dr. V.K. Vijayvargiya and Dr. V.K. Byas was submitted but the learned trial Judge without application of mind dismissed it only on the ground that sufficient time for defence evidence was already given to the accused persons. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order. I have considered the said submissions and provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. which are reproduced as under : "311. Power to summon material witnesses, or examine person present. - Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, 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 re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." The impugned order when examined in the light of the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. it is evident that the learned trial Judge did not consider the application in a proper way. It is also not clear as to under what manner how many adjournments or how much time was allowed for defence evidence and mere rejection of application by saying that sufficient time was allowed, was not a justifiable ground for rejecting the application. The second part of Section 311 Cr.P.C. makes a provision that when evidence of any person appears to be essential for the just decision of the case, the Court shall summon such witness. According to the accused petitioner he got grievous injury by sharp weapon and to prove this defence version, examination of two doctors was essential for the just decision of this case. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is clear that the learned trial Judge passed the order without considering the relevant provision of law and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter for reconsideration of the trial Court. Thus this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.8.2002, is set aside and it is directed that the learned trial Judge after giving an opportunity of hearing, should decide the application afresh according to the provisions of law. Petition allowed.;