Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, CJ.
Ramesha Pallai & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
CRLMC No. 2332 of 2017
Decided On : 09-12-2022
N. K. Sahu, Advocate, Janmajaya Katikia, Advocate
The principle of not allowing belated summoning of witnesses causing great prejudice to the accused.
Headnote:
Witness Summoning - Prosecution Evidence - Belated Summoning of Witnesses
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution evidence was closed in December 2016, and an application for summoning five more witnesses was filed in June 2017, within six months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the attempt at summoning more witnesses was not belated, and the petitioner would not be greatly prejudiced as they would still be able to cross-examine the witnesses.
Issues: The issue was whether summoning additional witnesses after the closure of prosecution evidence would cause prejudice to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that belated summoning of witnesses causing great prejudice to the accused should not be allowed, but in this case, the attempt was not belated and the accused would still have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim order.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328, where it was observed that where the prosecution evidence 'has been closed long back and the reasons for non-examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed.'
2. However, in the present case it is seen that while the prosecution evidence was closed in December 2016, the application for summoning five more witnesses, three of whom were stated to be eye-witnesses and two medical officers, was filed in June, 2017 i.e. within six months. It cannot therefore be said that the attempt at summoning more witnesses was 'belated' or long after the closure of the prosecution evidence.
3. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the Petitioner would not be greatly prejudiced because in any event, the Petitioner would be able to cross-examine the said witnesses.
4. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not call for interference. The petition is dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below forthwith.
