Back
Allahabad Permits Summoning Of At Any Stage Under
In a significant ruling concerning the scope of in , the of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has clarified that trial courts maintain broad discretion to summon at any stage of proceedings. The court emphasized that the pursuit of truth takes precedence over technical delays.
Case Background
The legal dispute originated from a criminal case pending before the . The petitioner, Gulzar Ali, sought to call two from the and the victim’s mother (PW1) to provide . These experts had assisted in recording the victim's statements under .
The crux of the matter involved a shifting narrative; while the original alleged the , the victim later included allegations of in her statement recorded under . The defense argued that, given the victim is mentally challenged, the participation of these experts is vital for a just determination of the facts. The had previously rejected the application, citing a long delay in filing and noting that the of these witnesses had not yet commenced.
Arguments and Legal Analysis
Counsel for the applicant contended that the lower court’s refusal was a product of and that the experts’ accounts were critical for establishing the sequence of events. Conversely, the State argued that the application was filed with a significant three-year delay and that the witnesses could not be because their had not occurred.
Referencing the landmark judgments in
and
, the
noted that the
"age of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the matter."
The Court further reasoned that
CrPC
is designed to ensure no relevant evidence is excluded when determining the accused's
or
.
Key Observations
Identifying the procedural error in the 's order, Justice Shree Prakash Singh stated:
"If the reaches to the conclusion that the examination of a witness is necessary, such witness can be summoned at any stage, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment. Therefore, there can be no legal bar of summoning the witnesses only because their has not yet been conducted."
The Court further reinforced the object of the provision:
"The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts."
Addressing the responsibility of the judiciary, the Court added:
"This Court is conscious of the fact that before recording a against an accused, all relevant possibilities bearing upon the of the accused, are required to be explored."
The Final Decision
Finding merit in the applicant’s plea, the set aside the order dated . The matter has been to the , with a mandate to reconsider the application under CrPC afresh, in accordance with the law, within a period of eight weeks. This directive serves as a reminder to subordinate courts that administrative convenience should not stifle the fundamental requirement of securing all material evidence necessary for an impartial trial.
