prove those documents. The documents sought to be placed/proved on record, have been inadvertently left out i.e. (1) the intelligence report dated 20.4.2007 and (2) the receipt issued from Central Bureau Control Laboratory, New Delhi for deposit of sample bearing receipt No.43 dated 24.4.2007. Production of these documents and proving the same in accordance with law would not amount to filling up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It could at best be said to be an over-sight in management of the prosecution and an inadvertant mistake on the part of the prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad's case(supra) has dealt with this issue and has permitted the prosecution to produce such evidence which would fulfill the requirement of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that being exigencies of the situation, fair-play and good sense and the requirement of justice which command production of such documents which are essential for the just decision of the case. The present case fulfills the requirement of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the Special Judge, Ludhiana cannot be faulted with and, thus, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court while allowing the application of the prosecution for permission to place on record the documents and prove the same as per law.
