The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of summoning relevant evidence, such as the attendance register, for a fair trial and just decision of the case.

1. - By way of instant misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner challenges that part of the order dated 2.8.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) no. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in sessions case no. 312004 whereby the application dated 31.7.2004 under Section 91 Cr.PC. and the application dated 2.8.2004 under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. filed by him have been dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this misc. petition are that Ram Prakash PW. 4 lodged a report at about 3.30 p.m. on 19.9.2003 at the Vidhayakpuri police station, Jaipur City stating therein that he was working at the reception counter of Hotel Kalyan. On 18.9.2003 at about 11.00 a.m. two persons came at the hotel and introduced themselves as husband and wife. Room No. 104 was allotted to them and entry in the register was made in the name of Harpal Singh. They took tea and lunch and thereafter went out in the evening. They returned at about 7.30 p.m. and went to sleep. Next day at about 11 a.m. they had breakfast. Thereafter at about 2.00 p.m. Harpal Singh came out of the room an asked Surendra Singh PW. 12 for auto-rickshaw. Surendra Singh PW. 12 went out for hiring an auto-rickshaw but soon after Harpal Singh himself went away by another auto-rickshaw. Thereafter Ram Prakash Sharma PW. 4 phoned in the room but no-one answered the phone call. He then went to the room and pressed the button of the bell from outside but he found the room locked. He then informed Seth Mool Chand Gupta who asked him to inform the police. Accordingly he informed the Vidhayakpuri police station. Incharge of the police statron alongwith other police personnel came to the hotel. The room was opened by a duplicate key. On opening the door of the room the lady who came with Harpal Singh was found hanging on the bed and blood was coming out from her mouth. According to the report Harpal Singh had killed the lady by strangulation with the help of dupatta. A case was registered under Section 302 IPC. After usual investigation a challan was filed against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC. Ram Prakash PW. 4 and Surendra Singh PW. 12 were examined by the prosecution. They stated in their cross-examination that there was an attendance register of the hotel employees in the Hotel Kalyan. The petitioner filed two applications for summoning the attendance register of the employees of the Hotel Kalyan and the 'perchies' on which the food 35 articles were supplied in room no. 104. The trial court dismissed the two applications by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this misc. petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor.Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press his prayer as regards the 'perchies' of food articles. I am also of the view that summoning of the 'perchies' is not at all necessary in the matter.

4. Learned trial court has rejected the application for calling the attendance register on the ground that the attendance register has not been seized during investigation and, therefore, it is not necessary to summon the register.

5. Undoubtedly Ram Prakash PW. 4 and Surendra Singh PW. 12 are the employees of the Hotel Kalyan. They have admitted in their cross-examination that an attendance register of the employees of the hotel is maintained there. In view of the statements of Ram Prakash PW. 4 and Surendra Singh PW. 12 I am of the view that in the interest of justice and for just decision of the case the attendance register of the Hotel Kalyan of the relevant time should be summoned and an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the two witnesses with respect to that. Learned trial court has committed an error by refusing to summon the attendance register of the employees of the hotel on the ground that it has not been seized during investigation.

6. In the result, the misc. petition is partly allowed, the impugned order dated 2.8.2004 so far as it relates to the dis