Honble JOSHI, J.–This criminal miscellaneous petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track). Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 63/2001 dated 12.10.2001, whereby the application of the petitioner complainant under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

(2). The facts of the case in brief are that a First Information Report No. 26 dated 13.3.98 was lodged at P.S. Anadara, District Sirohi alleging that the accused-non peti- tioner No.2 Chhaganlal inflicted injury by Spade on the head of the petitioner. Thereafter, the case was registered, investigated and committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi u/Secs. 307, 325, 324 & 323 IPC. The case was then transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge and charge was framed against the accused under Sec. 307 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The evidence from the prosecution side was summoned and it was closed on 19.09.2001 and the case was fixed on 29.09.2001. On that day, the statement of the accused was recorded and he expressed not to lead evidence in defence and therefore, the case was fixed for final arguments on 3.10.2001. On 3.10.2001, an application u/Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner Same Ram and a copy of the same was supplied both to the counsel for the defence and to the Additional Public Prosecutor. The case was then adjourned to 4.10.2001. On that day, ``Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of Sama Ram and the Additional Public Prosecutor recorded his no objection on it. Reply to the application was filed by the counsel for the defence. The learned counsel for the accused opposed the application filed by the petitioner Sama Ram and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested the Court to pass appropriate order according to law. On 12.10.2001 the arguments on the application were heard and it was rejected by the Court.

(3). Aggrieved by the said order this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-injured Sama Ram.

(4). It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence and the documents, which the petitioner wanted to produce are relevant and essential for the just decision of the case. The record pertains to hospital record regarding his stay, treatment in the hospital and the evidence of the doctor, who admitted and given treatments to him. It was further argued that the application has been filed at the earliest. The evidence was closed on 19.09.2001 and as soon as the complainant- petitioner came to know about it on 3.10.2001, the day on which the case was fixed for hearing arguments, he filed the application and therefore, it cannot be said that the application has been filed with ulterior motive. He has further argued that the learned trial Court did not consider whether the evidence, which he wanted to be produced was essential for the just decision of the case or not therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside and the petition may be accepted, witnesses with documents may be allowed to be produce on behalf of the prosecution.

(5). It was argued further on behalf of the non-petitioner No.2 it may be argued, that no revision is maintainable against the order and, if the Court comes to this conclusion, this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable to secure the ends of the justice and it may be treated likewise. He has further argued that it cannot be said that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the said application as has been held by the learned trial Court.

(6). The learned Public Prosecutor did not oppose the petition. However, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 opposed it vehemently.

(7). It was argued by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 (accused) that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file this petition ; that the application was delayed; that the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the prosecution itself and not by Court; and that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document