***

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (ORAL) –

1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala in FIR No. 21 dated 15.04.2019, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 408 IPC at Police Station Mehal Kalan, District Barnala, whereby the second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent has been allowed at the fag end of the trial.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that during the course of trial arising out of FIR No. 21 dated 15.04.2019, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of Dr. Inderjit Singh, handwriting and fingerprint expert, Patiala, in order to prove the report allegedly pertaining to certain pronotes and receipts relied upon by the prosecution. It was stated in the application that the said report formed part of the police record and the proposed witness was necessary for proper adjudication of the case.

The said application was opposed on behalf of the accused–petitioner by filing a reply, inter alia contending that the proposed witness had not been cited in the list of witnesses during investigation and that the application had been moved at a belated stage only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It was further submitted that the investigating agency had already obtained the report from FSL and therefore summoning of the said witness was unnecessary. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material placed on record, allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and ordered that the said handwriting and fingerprint expert be summoned as a witness for the purpose of evidence in the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the prosecution had already availed opportunity to lead its evidence and the present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of a handwriting and fingerprint expert is in fact the second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which has been moved at a highly belated stage of the trial only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It is further contended that the investigating agency had already obtained a report from the Government FSL Laboratory, and therefore there was no necessity to summon a private handwriting and fingerprint expert to prove a similar fact. According to the petitioner, permitting such evidence would amount to allowing the prosecution to improve its case at a late stage. It is also argued that the said expert was never cited as a witness during investigation, his statement was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and he was not included in the list of witnesses; therefore, he cannot be permitted to be examined as a witness during the course of trial.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State and has contested the present petition.

6. Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate, has made appearance on behalf of respondent-complainant and filed memo of appearance, which is taken on record.

7. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the present petition while supporting the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. It has been submitted that the proposed witness is a material witness whose examination is necessary for proper adjudication of the case and the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings to secure the ends of justice. It is further submitted that the accused would suffer no prejudice as he would have full opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

9. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the handwriting and fingerprint expert has been allowed. The contention of the petitioner that the application was the second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and was moved at a belated stage does not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order. It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is of a very wide amplitude and can be exercised by the Court at any stage of inquiry or trial if the evidence sought to be adduced appears to be necessary for the just decision of the case. Merely because the application was moved at a later stage of the trial would not by itself render the order illegal, particularly when the trial Court has found that the proposed witness is relevant for establishing the material facts of the case.

10. The argument that the prosecution had already obtained the report of the Government FSL Laboratory and therefore there was no need to examine a private expert is also devoid of merit. The trial Court has only permitted the summoning of the witness so that the report relied upon by the prosecution may be duly proved on record. The evidentiary value of such testimony would always remain subject to cross-examination and appreciation at the stage of final adjudication. Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner merely by permitting the examination of the said expert.

11. Similarly, the submission that the proposed witness was not cited in the list of witnesses or that his statement was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted as a ground to disallow the application. The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C is to enable the Court to summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. The provision is not restricted only to those witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation. The trial Court, in its discretion, is competent to summon any such witness if the circumstances of the case so warrant. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned trial Court has considered the relevant aspects and has come to the conclusion that the examination of the proposed witness would assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion and that no prejudice would be caused to the accused as he would have the right to cross-examine the witness.

12. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala warranting interference in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

13. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********