The provision for S. 311, Cr. P C. allows permission even after closing of the evidence to dispose of a matter in the interest of justice.

1. - None present on behalf of the non-petitioners in spite of service of notice.

2. This petition is directed against the order dated 20th August, 88, passed by the ACJM, Karauli, by which, the petitioner's application u/s. 311, Cr.P.C., has been rejected.

3. The petitioner filed a complaint against the non-petitioners u/s. 500, IPC. During the trial of the case, on 10th April, 87, the petitioner moved an application requesting the court to permit him to examine one Bharat Singh, Advocate, and also call for the record of the civil suit pending between the parties. After filing of the said application, the complainant closed his evidence, and the case proceeded further for the statements of the accused persons and their defence. Thereafter on 29th July. 88, the petitioner moved another application u/s. 311, Cr. P.C., which was dismissed by the impugned order.

4. Heard Mr. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the trial court. It is correct that the petitioner did not press the application dated 10th April, 87, before closing his evidence. He should have requested the court to pass necessary orders on that application. Apart from this, an application was filed on 10th April, 87, So, it was the duty of the court to have disposed of that application also. So, both the petitioner as well as the court were negligent in their respective duties. The second application was submitted on 29th July, 88, requesting the court to call Bharat Singh, Advocate, for his statement, along with the record; and that application was disposed of vide impugned order.

5. After perusing the impugned order, I find that the said order has been passed without giving any reasons, by the trial court. In a very routine manner, while mentioning irrelevant things, it has dismissed the application without giving any reasons therefor. This order is a frivolous order. Provision for S. 311, Cr. P C. has been made to grant permission even after closing of the evidence to dispose of a matter, in the interest of justice. It does not matter that the petitioner did not press his application dated 10th April, 87. When a second application was moved by the petitioner on 29th July, 88, it was the duty of the trial court to have appreciated the matter and passed an appropriate order, keeping in mind whether on the ground of that application. It was necessary to dispose of that matter between the parties. The learned Magistrate, however, did not care look into this aspect while rejecting the application of the petitioner. So, the impugned order dated 20th August, 88, is no order and cannot be maintained as such.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the applications moved by the petitioner on 10th April, 87 and on 29th July, 88 are to be accepted, and the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to call the witness, so that, there may be an appropriate decision in the matter between the parties.

7. As a result the petition is allowed. The order of the trial court dated 20th August, 88, is set aside; and the Trial court is directed to examine Bharat Singh Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner; and also summon the record, for his statement, from the civil court.Petition allowed.

*******