Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 2078
2008 CRI. L. J. 2365
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
Sushil Ansal and Ors.
Versus
State.
Cr. M.C. No. 2955 and Crl. M.A. No. 10527 of 2007
Decided On:- 21 -9 -2007.
Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate, Prem Kumar, R. Suri, Mohit Gupta and Rajesh Mahajan, for Petitioner; P. P. Malhotra, Addl. S. G., Y. K. Saxena, K. M. Tiwari, Chetan Chawla, Gaurav Sharma, for Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the stage at which written arguments can be filed and the sequence in which arguments are to be addressed are governed by the provisions of Section 314 and Section 234 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Section 227 - Uphaar Tragedy Case - Section 304-A/304/337/338/285/287/436/427, IPC - Section 314 of Cr.P.C. - Section 234 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India to quash an order passed by the trial Court and to allow further oral arguments and written submissions. The trial Court had dismissed the petitioners' application for filing written arguments in a case known as Uphaar Tragedy Case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial Court did not violate the principles of natural justice and that the petitioners were not entitled to place written arguments on record after the conclusion of oral arguments. The court also rejected the petitioners' objections regarding the special public prosecutor's right to address the Court after the petitioners' arguments were over.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, right to place written arguments on record, and special public prosecutor's right to address the Court after the petitioners' arguments were over.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 314 of Cr.P.C. and Section 234 of Cr.P.C. to determine the stage at which written arguments can be filed and the sequence in which arguments are to be addressed. It emphasized that once the arguments are concluded by the parties, the proceedings and hearing of the case are over, and the Court has only to announce the judgment.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the trial Court's order.
2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of this petition are that a case under Section 304-A/304/337/338/285/287/ 436/427, IPC (known as Uphaar Tragedy Case) was fixed for delivery of judgment on 5th September, 2007. The order passed by the trial Court on 21st August, 2007 reads as under :
IN THE COURT OF MRS. MAMTA SEHGAL, ASJ, ND CBI v. Sushil Ansal etc. 21-8-2007 Present : Shri Saxena SPP for CBI All accused with their respective counsel Arguments on behalf of CBT concluded yesterday. Now to come up on 5-9-2007 for judgment Sd/-ASJ/ND/21-8-3007 On 5th September, 2007 an application made by the petitioners for filing written arguments was dismissed by the trial Court hence this petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the trial Court violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioners only wanted to place the written submissions (running into 335 typed pages) on record since, the evidence and the document in this case involved thousands of pages and it was not practically possible for the Judge to remember all the arguments advanced orally. It was also submitted that while oral arguments are addresssed by the parties, normally, the judge prepares her own notes for memory and notes down the points of arguments, however, the counsel for the accused do not have the advantage of looking into those notes or knowing the contents of those notes and therefore, it is not known to the accused, if the, notes reflect all the points raised or not. Placing written arguments on record, therefore, was to keep on record the points raised by the accused for the benefit of a fair decision.
4. The counsel also submitted that the learned trial Judge violated provisions of Section 234, Cr.P.C. He submitted that under Section 234, Cr.P.C. the right to rebuttal is given to the prosecution only with regard to such points of law that are raised by the counsel for the accused during his arguments. If no new point of law is raised then right to rebuttal cannot be given. But, in the present case, Special Public Prosecutor was given right to rebuttal despite the opposition of the accused that no new point of law was raised by the accused and utilizing this right of rebuttal the Special Public Prosecutor re-argued the matter substantially on facts prejudicing the accused. Since no further chance of rebuttal was given by to the accused, accused wanted to address further oral arguments.
5. On facts, it was submitted by the learned counsel that on 13th August, 2007 trial Court had disposed of the application of the petitioners under Section 234, Cr.P.C. for not giving right to rebuttal to the prosecution and heard the oral arguments of the prosecutor-till 20th August, 2007. After completing the arguments, the case was fixed by the trial Court for 21st August, 2007 for clarification of certain questions rising in her mind. On that day the trial Court did not hear any clarification and deferred the case for 5th September, 2007. The petitioners presented written arguments to the trial Court on 22nd August, 2007 and on 25th August, 2007 and the trial Court directed them that written arguments/submissions be filed on 5th September, 2007 in presence of public prosecutor. On 5th September, 2007 trial Court refused to accept the written arguments/submissions and passed the impugned order.
6. Section 314 of Cr.P.C. deals with the oral arguments and memorandum of arguments. Section 314 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :
314. Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments. - (1) Any party to a proceeding may, as soon as may be after the close of his
