Recall of witness to prove sanction after evidence closed was refused; courts should not let prosecution fill gaps by inadvertence.

The Karnataka High Court noted that a prosecution request to recall P.W. 1 after closure of evidence and arguments, solely to prove an omitted sanction document said to have been filed through inadvertence, is ordinarily not justified because a party should not be allowed to fill gaps in its case at that stage. The Court indicated that if the sanction had in fact been obtained and was already on record with the complaint, the Magistrate could consider that document in accordance with law, but recall of the witness on these facts was not warranted. The request was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing the prosecution's request to recall P.W. 1 for proving the sanction to prosecute the accused.

Analysis: The revision arose from a request made after the close of evidence and arguments, on the ground that the sanction said to have been obtained had not been exhibited due to inadvertence. The Court held that the prosecution cannot ordinarily be permitted to fill up gaps in its case after closure of the evidence, especially where the omission is attributed only to inadvertence. It was observed that if sanction had in fact been obtained and filed with the complaint, the court could consider the document already on record; but recalling the witness for that purpose was not justified on the facts stated. The question whether the available sanction could be used by the Magistrate was left open for decision in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The refusal to recall P.W. 1 was upheld and the prosecution's request was declined.

---