The Court has the discretion to examine additional witnesses in a criminal case, even if those witnesses are suggested by the complainant, but the Court is not obligated to do so.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This petition has been directed against order dated 13.12.1994 whereby Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala has allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant and has directed the trial Court to apply its mind to the request of the complainant and examine the witnesses, if any, in strict compliance with the order dated 9.5.1994 of the Honble Supreme Court of India.

2. In brief, the facts are that a complaint was filed by Gopal Krishan, respondent No. 1 against Naresh Kumar, petitioner, under Sections 420/471 I.P.C. on 25.3.1986. A complaint on these very allegations was also made to the S.D.M. as Administrator, Municipal Committee, who on 14.2.1987 got a case registered against Naresh Kumar and his brother Sunil Kumar under Sections 420, 408, 471, 120-B, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, Nabha. On 17.7.1987, the learned Magistrate issued process in complaint against Naresh Kumar. Police too filed report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 8.2.1988 against Naresh Kumar as well as his brother Sunil Kumar. On 16.7.1988, challan case as well as complaint case were clubbed together and the Magistrate ordered that both the petitions be tried together. On 13.1.1988, the A.P.P. made a statement closing the evidence and on the statement made by A.P.P. the court, by order, closed the evidence of the prosecution. Before the statement of the accused could be recorded or he could be given an opportunity to lead evidence in defence, an application was filed by Gopal Krishan saying that the witnesses named in the complaint have not been examined and thus a request was made that they be examined. On 25.1.1990, a request made by the complainant was allowed and the revision preferred against that order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 20.1.1993. Against this order, Criminal Misc. No. 2063 of 1993 was preferred in this Court but the same was dismissed on 18.1.1994. The judgment of this Court is reported in 1994(2) Recent C.R. 406 (Naresh Kumar v. State of Punjab). The petitioner challenged the order of this Court by way of Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order :-

"If the learned Prosecutor chooses, he may examine the additional witnesses with the permission of the Court notwithstanding the fact that such witnesses are suggested by the complainant, in view of Section 210(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The S.L.P. is disposed of accordingly."

The order of the High Court was thus modified and it was left to the prosecutor to examine the additional witnesses with the permission of the Court notwithstanding that such witnesses were suggested by the complainant. This order was passed in terms of Section 210 Cr.P.C. After the judgment of the Apex Court in S.L.P. preferred by the petitioners, A.P.P. made a statement on 10.6.1994 closing the evidence and not choosing to examine the additional witnesses. On 14.6.1994, Gopal Krishan i.e. respondent, again made an application saying the order dated 10.6.1994 passed by the trial Court closing the evidence is derogatory to the mandate as recorded by the High Court on 18.1.1994 and based on gross misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India. He thus prayed that he be permitted to summon the witnesses as directed by the High Court. This application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha vide order dated 17.9.1994 as he was of the view that the matter has already been disposed of by the Apex Court and cannot be reagitated by the complainant. Against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, respondent preferred the revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, who vide order dated 13.12.1994 has set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate and directed the Judicial Magistrate to decide the matter afresh.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has n