LODHA, J.—This revision application raises two important questions of law:

(1) Whether the trial court is competent to recall a prosecution witness to give evidence on a point on which he has already deposed earlier ? and

(2) Whether the trial court can look into the police diary in order to ascertain the time and date of the medical examination of the injured ?

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision application are in a very short compass. Dr. Chetan Prakash (PW.3) was examined in the present case by the trial court. According to his statement the time of medical examination of the injuries was two hours earlier to the time and the date of occurrence. The trial court while considering the case for giving judgement found that the time and date of the medical examination of the injured was not given in Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 and in place of that time of incident was given. On this the court asked the Assistant Public Prosecutor to call for the police diary. From the police diary the court found that on March 4, 1975, the day on which the incident is alleged to have taken place,, the doctor was out of station to attend some camp. It was mentioned that on account of this the medical examination could not be conducted and it would be now conducted to-morrow. A letter was also sent by the police to the doctor at Bhadra to conduct medical examination and this letter is dated March 5, 1975.

3. On the basis of the above the court was of the opinion that the doctor should be re-examined by recalling him in the interest of justice.

4. The accused has challenged this on the ground that after the entire evidence has been adduced by both the parties and the case has been kept for announcement of judgment, the court exceeded its jurisdiction in recalling the doctor under the inherent powers of the court. Reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court: State vs. S.B. Sexena(l). The counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the following paragraph extracted from the judgment in Rex vs. S. Bora Harris (2) wherein Avory J., observed as follows:

"A Judge at a criminal trial has the right to call a witness not called by either the orosecution or the defence, without the consent of either the prosecution or the defence, if in his opinion that course is necessary in the interests of justice, but in order that in justice should not be done to an accused person a Judge should not call a witness in a criminal trail after the case for the defence is closed except in a case where a matter arises eximproviso, which no human ingenuity can for see, on the part of the prisoner."

In para 6 of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, the Court has observed as follows:—

"6. In our criminal jurisprudence staturory law, as laid down in s.540, Cr.P.C. confers extensive powers upon the court to summon or reexamine or recall any witness. This has been left to the discretion of the Court. The second part of S.540, Cr.P.C. compels the court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine a witness if it is essential for it to do so for the just decision of the case. In the present case the Court of Special Judge, Jaipur, was not moved to exercise powers under the first part of S.540 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the exercise of such power has been left, at the discretion of the court. It is not meant to be used for the purpose of enabling the prosecution to fill up any lacuna, in its evidence. As for the second part the court did not observe that to summon and examine or to recall and re-examine witnesses was necessaru for the just decision of the case. The Court on the other hand said:

"The prosecution by this application wants to take second inning to plug the loopholes of its case and lapses of cross-examination after having heard the defence case. It is far from bonafide."

5. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad appearing for the petitioners after having cited the above case and referred to it at the admission stage, very frankly and fairly conceded today that this paragraph of the ki

Click Here to Read the rest of this document