JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. The present revision petition has been instituted against the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been rejected.

2. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and revision against the same is not maintainable, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010(5) RCR (Criminal) 512 titled Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam and the only remedy with the petitioner is to assail the same by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, in the interest of justice, present revision petition is treated as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and same be accordingly registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was moved to examine Dr. Surinder Pal Singh, who had medico legally examined one of the victims namely Jagir Kaur. The aforesaid doctor could not be cited as a witness in the final report submitted by the police, as a result of which, he was not examined. However his examination is essential for just decision of the case and he may thus be allowed to be examined. Learned counsel further submits that trial Court has the power to summon any person as a witness whose evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case and since the doctor who conducted the MLR is a material witness, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application. In case, he is not allowed to be examined, the MLR of injured Jagir Kaur shall remain unproved, which will seriously prejudice the case of the prosecution and learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and argued that earlier also three applications had been moved which had been allowed. At one stage, the accused were acquitted but the Appellate Court had set aside the judgment of acquittal on the ground that two applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C had remained undecided and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court. Thereafter, four witnesses were examined in respect of whom the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was allowed and now again, the present application has been moved just to fill up the lacuna in the present case but the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C cannot be allowed to be exercised just to fill up lacunas. Application in hand was moved just to delay the trial and the impugned order is well reasoned and justified and same does not call for any interference and the petition in hand be dismissed.

5. Before proceeding further, Section 311 Cr.P.C is reproduced as under:-

“311. 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 re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2013 SC 3081 Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar has laid down following guidelines and governing principles for exercising powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C to summon, recall or re-examine any person as a witness:-

“(i) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?

(ii) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311, CrPC should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.

(iii) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the po