1. These two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called in short as Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the complainant-petitioner challenging the orders dated 2.2.2006 and 3.4.2006 respectively, passed by the learned A.D.J. (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 9/2005.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that during the course of trial of the abovesaid sessions case, the prosecution filed an application on 12.9.2005 along-with the birth certificate of Kumari Jyotsana who was born on 5.2.1989 in Santokba Durlabhji Medical Hospital, Jaipur along-with her sister as twins stating that the birth certificate of Kumari Jyotsana could not be produced in evidence inadvertently which may be now taken on record, but after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the said application was dismissed on 2.2.2006.

3. Thereafter, another application under Section 294/311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 3.4.2006 stating that the Investigating Officer has wilfully not seized the birth certificate of Kumari Jyotsana. As per the birth certificate, her age was 14 years, 1 month and 23 days on the date of occurrence. Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that all the facts except (conditions of documents or electronics records) may be proved by oral evidence. Since the date of birth of Kumari Jyotsana is mentioned in the birth certificate, the same can be proved by producing the birth certificate. It was also prayed that the birth certificate of Kumari Jyotsana PW-1 be taken on record and the accused be required to admit or deny the same and in case he denies the document, Sub-Registrar of Births and Deaths posted in Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur may be summoned along-with relevant documents so that justice may be done to the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this application was also dismissed on 3.4.2006 itself. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner-complainant has challenged the orders in these petitions which substantially involve the same controversy and seek same relief. So, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the relevant documents and the impugned orders.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has contended that the impugned-orders dated 2.2.2006 and 3.4.2006 are erroneous, illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court below has not considered the import of Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It has also not kept in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases. He has also submitted that the first application has been rejected on the ground that neither any specific provision has been mentioned in the application nor the same has been shown at the time of arguments. The second application has been rejected solely on the ground that it was inordinately belated. According to the learned counsel, these are not the valid grounds for rejecting the applications. The orders of the learned Court below tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Court and interference of this Court is called for and justified for securing the ends of justice.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-non-petitioner has vehemently opposed the petitions. He has submitted that the powers vested in the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to fill-up the lacuna in the prosecution case. The Court has already allowed the prayer of the prosecution to summon and examine the medical officer with regard to the age of the prosecutrix. If the instant petitions are allowed, it would be never ending process. The petitioner-complainant or the prosecution may come forward again with some other evidence to fill-up the lacuna in the prosecution case. According to him, allowing these petitions would substantially result in fulfilling the lacuna in