Point of Law: administering criminal justice is a two-end process, where guarding the ensured rights of the accused under the Constitution is as imperative as ensuring justice to the victim.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners (original accused) are aggrieved by an order dated 23/07/2021, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Sessions Court”), whereby two applications for calling additional witnesses have been allowed. The petitioners further claim that the Sessions Court could not have allowed the prosecution to file supplementary charge-sheets on 24/06/2021 and 15/07/2021, since the trial had already begun and twelve witnesses already stood examined.

2. In the present case, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioners for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Schedule 26 of the Drug Prices Control Order 2013, read with provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as also the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The FIR was registered on 18/04/2021 and charge-sheet was filed on 03/05/2021. In the charge-sheet, it was claimed that the petitioners were liable to be prosecuted for offences under Sections 420, 188, 381 read with 34 of the IPC, as also Sections 18(c), 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioners were arrested and while the petitioner No.2 was released on bail, the petitioner No.1 continues to be behind bars. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were hoarding and blackmarketing medicines and drugs required for treatment of Covid-19 virus, in violation of relevant Government Notifications and Orders, thereby committing the said offences. Charge was framed against the petitioners on 23/06/2021. Thereafter, examination of the prosecution witnesses commenced from 25/06/2021.

3. A supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 24/06/2021 and recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses continued. On 15/07/2021, another supplementary charge-sheet was placed on the record, upon which the Sessions Court passed an order. By this time, nine prosecution witnesses had been examined.

4. Thereafter, on 20/07/2021 and 23/07/2021, the Special Public Prosecutor filed two applications for permission to examine additional witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. By this time, twelve prosecution witnesses were already examined. In the said applications, the Special Public Prosecutor stated that some documents could not be filed with the original charge-sheet and they were placed on record along with supplementary charge-sheets and that in the light of the documents filed along with the supplementary charge-sheets, additional witnesses were required to be examined. On 23/07/2021, the Sessions Court, by a common order, allowed both the applications for examining additional witnesses (Exhs.69 and 88), after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor as well as the petitioners. Summons were issued to the additional witnesses sought to be examined.

5. At this stage, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition contending that supplementary charge-sheets could not have been filed before the Sessions Court under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), for the reason that charges were already framed and the trial had begun. It was submitted that twelve witnesses were already examined and that such supplementary charge-sheets with additional documents could not have been placed on record after commencement of trial, as it caused prejudice to the petitioners i.e. the original accused. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2019) 17 SCC 1. This Court issued notice for final disposal in the Writ Petition on 29/07/2021.

6. The Writ Petition was taken up for final disposal, wherein the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. were heard at length.

7. Mr. S.V. Bhutada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribha