MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated December 17, 1992 by which he has dismissed the application of the Public Prosecutor moved under Section 311, Cr.P.C. for the examination of the investigating officer Karan Raj in sessions case No. 63/91 -State v. Jalam Singh and Ors. Under Section 302, 307, 325 and 323, I.P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) FOR the first time, summons were issued to the investigating officer Karari Raj for May 27, 1992. Thereafter, 6.6.92, 20.6.92, 15.7.92, 5.8.92, 19.8.92, 2.9.92, 14.9.92, 29.9.92, 13.10.92, 30.10.92, 11.11.92, 18.11.92 and 26.11.92 were fixed in the case for his evidence. When he was not produced on November 26, 1992, the prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was moved by the learned Public Prosecutor stating that Karan Raj could not be produced earlier as he had retired, his address could not be known earlier and now his address is known. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the parties, the application was dismissed by order dated December 17, 1992. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant petitioner that investigating officer Karan Raj is a very material witness in the case, he registered the FIR, prepared the site inspection memo and site plan, recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and recoveries were effected on the basis of the information given by the accused persons and recorded by him under Section 27, Evidence Act. He further contended that under second part of Section 311, Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the evidence of the investigating officer Karan Raj is essential for the just decision of the case and the learned Sessions Judge did not deal with this aspect of the matter in his order under challenge.
(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused -non -petitioner that the complainant petitioner has no locus standi in this case, 14 dates were fixed in the case for recording the statement of the investigating officer Karan Raj, by moving the said application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. the Public Prosecutor wanted to fill up the lacunas which crept in the prosecution evidence and Karan Raj could have been produced if genuine efforts would have been made earlier for his production.;