JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in Spt. G.R. Case No.639/1992 arising out of Ghaghra P.S. Case No.70/1992, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla.

3. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.403 of 2016 which was filed for examination of one witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 07.12.2021 with direction that the petitioner on the date fixed by the trial court will examine P.W.3. He further submits that on 14.12.2021, the said P.W.3 was recalled and on the same day he was examined by the petitioner and thereafter P.W. 3 was discharged. He also submits that a petition was filed on behalf of the accused to exhibit mark the Departmental Enquiry report dated 20.10.1995 by which the petitioner was exonerated by the departmental proceeding. He further submits that the learned court below has rejected the said petition on the ground that the case is pending since 1992 and the petition filed by the petitioner is mischievous one and against the procedural law and not maintainable in law.

4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that there was no question of filling up lacuna as the document was received and filed in terms of Subsection (3) of Section 294 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the document is a genuine and valid one passed by a competent authority. The said document may be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. There was no objection on behalf of the Public Prosecutor. On the point of lacuna, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 110.

5. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

“8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better.

9. The very same decision Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India which cautioned against filling up lacuna has also laid down the ratio thus: (AIR Headnote)

“It is therefore clear that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

6. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that Section 294 Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Saddiq & others v. State, reported in 1981 CRI L.J. 379.

Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

“9. It is open to the prosecution or the accused to dispute the genuineness of a document filed by the opposite party under S