The court confirmed that Section 311 CrPC allows summoning of witnesses at any stage if essential for justice, even post-final arguments, especially when original witnesses are unavailable due to unforeseen circumstances.

ORDER :

1. The matter comes up on an application (IA No.01/2025) filed by the petitioner for rectification in the date of impugned order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, the revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court but due to a typographical and inadvertent error, date of the impugned order has been incorrectly mentioned as 08.10.2025 in both subject matter and the prayer clause of the revision petition. It is submitted that error was unintentional and bona fide. Therefore, learned counsel prays that application for rectification be allowed.

3. In view of the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. The date of the impugned order mentioned in the subject matter and the prayer clause of the revision petition shall be corrected to 09.09.2025 in place of 08.10.2025.

4. By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, (Additional Sessions Judge, No.1), Barmer, whereby application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed.

5. The facts as reflected in the impugned order are that on 17.07.2025, the Special Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 311 CrPC stating that the seizure officer and investigating officer, Shri Ram Singh, who had prepared the seizure memo and effected recovery of the alleged contraband, had expired during the pendency of the trial. The judicial officer who had conducted the inventory proceedings under the NDPS Act, Shri Sher Singh Meena, had also passed away. It was submitted that PW-4 Hardan had accompanied late Ram Singh during the seizure and was competent to identify the report, signatures, and seized goods; and for proving the inventory proceedings, the prosecution sought to summon the then Station House Officer, Shri Hukumaram. It is stated that in the absence of both these witnesses, crucial documents in the case will not be exhibited. It was therefore prayed that name of both aforesaid witnesses may be included in the calendar of witnesses and they may be summoned for recording their evidences.

6. The trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application and summoned both the aforesaid witnesses through bailable warrants.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after recording the evidence; final arguments were already concluded on 05.07.2025, and the matter was posted for judgment on 17.07.2025. It was argued that the prosecution could not summon a new witnesses at this stage of the trial, and that the application was impermissible and intended to fill lacunae on the part of the prosecution. The counsel for petitioner cited following judgments in support of his contentions:-

1. Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision No. 816/2016

2. Union of India Vs. Chanchal Singh , S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2805/2009

3. Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2009) 2 WLC 753

4. Bhagwan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan , S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 39/2011

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial court properly appreciated the facts & circumstances and committed no illegality or perversity warranting interference.

10. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

11. The scope of Section 311 CrPC which is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereund