Sabina, J.:- This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging order dated 24.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nabha, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Reader of DSP, Nabha was dismissed.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant-petitioner was waylaid by the private respondents and was given beatings and was threatened that in case he helped Charanjit Kaur in her case then they would kill him. They also gave kick blows in his abdomen. After the close of prosecution evidence, the case was listed for defence evidence. Accused Kuldeep Singh examined a witness from his department in his defence evidence to prove his innocence. The prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon Reader of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nabha with the inquiry report. The said inquiry report was dated 10.2.2007 and the same was not relied upon by the prosecution at the time of presentation of challan.

Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

“Power to summon material witness, or examine person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

4. As per the above provision, the Court at any stage of trial may summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. However, the prosecution now wants to summon the witness with a view to rebut the evidence led by the accused. The prosecution cannot be allowed to fill in lacuna in its case. In these circumstances, learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioners for summoning the Reader of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nabha . No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out.

5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

--------------