The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court's discretion under Section 311 Cr. P.C. should be exercised in the interest of justice, ensuring the just decision of the case and serving the social need to pursue offenders.

D.N. Joshi, J.-Shri Omprakash Ojha through Additional Public Prosecutor submitted an application Under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in short as ‘Cr. P.C.’ hereinafter) to summon the witnesses relating to link evidence and medical evidence. However, by the impugned order dated 18-3-2002, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhilwara rejected the application.

Hence this petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that charges Under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC were read over and explained to the accused Sunil Kumar, who allegedly committed dowry death by pouring kerosine on her wife deceased Poorankala on 6th July, 1997. To prove the charges, prosecution exmined 18 witnesses. P.W. 15 Kuljeet Singh, Investigating Officer was examined on 28th May, 2001. Statement of the accused was recorded Under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and three witnesses were examined in defence up to 14-2-2002. The case was posted for final arguments on 19-2-2002. Thereafter, the complainant submited an application (All74) on 25-2-2002 to summon the doctor.

3. Heard learned counsel tor the complainant-petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the respondent No. 2.

.4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner that the trial Court has not properly exercised jurisdiction vested in it. The summoning of the link evidence was material for just decision of the case, and therefore, it was mandatory Under Section 311 Cr. P.C. to summon the witnesses relating to link evidence. It cannot be said that by production of evidence, the prosecution is trying to fill up any lacuna. The prosecution might be negligent but, for doing complete and substantial justice and for just decision of the case. The learned counsel relied on the following decision of the Apex Court in support of his argument :--

.(1) Rajendra Prasad vs. The Narcotic Cell, 1999 Cri LR (SC) p. 434 : (1999 CrLJ 3529)

.(2) State of Kerala vs. V. Padmnabhan Nair, 1999 Cri LR (SC) 438 : (1999 CrLJ 3696).

.5. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the argument of the complainant-petitioner.

.6. Controverting the argument of the complainant-petitioner, the learned counsel for the accused Shri Doongar Singh relying on the decision in Amichand vs. Krishna Kumar, reported in 1997 Cr. L.J. 1416 (Raj) argued that present petition by the complainant is not maintainable as being filed by a private person and the complainant has no locus standi to prefer the instant petition. Secondly, it. was argued that P.W. 15 Kuljeet Singh was examined on 28th May, 2003 but, the application for summoning link evidence was presented after a delay of nine months. Thirdly, the so called witnesses to be summoned viz. Raghuveer Singh, Bhagwatilal and Badrilal were not examined during investigation Under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Fourthly, there is no fault in the impugned order. Lastly it was argued that exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court should be slow to interfere in discretionary orders. The trial Court was perfectly within its jurisdiction and by a well-reasoned order, it has rejected the application.

7. I have gone through the impugned order and the relevant record.

8. First of all, the objection relating to locus-standi has to be decided.

.9. In Manohar Lal vs. Vinesh Anand, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1820 : (2001 CrLJ 2044), the Hon’ble Supreme court has held as under :--

.“To pursue an offender in the event of commission of an offence is to subserve a social need-Society cannot afford to have a criminal escape his liability, since that would bring about a state of social pollution, which is neither desired nor warranted and this is irrespective of the concept of locus-the doctrine of locus-standi is totally foreign to criminal jurisprudence.”

10. In the present case, the application signed by the complainant was submitted by Additional Public Prosecutor under his signature and therefore, it cannot be said that it was presented by the complainant only and not by the Addi