Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Raghbir Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Writ petition No. 788 of 1994,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 24, 1996
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 311 - POWER TO SUMMON MATERIAL WITNESS OR EXAMINE PERSON PRESENT - SCOPE AND PURPOSE - COURT'S DISCRETION - FAIR TRIAL - PREJUDICE TO ACCUSED - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - STAGE OF TRIAL - ESSENTIALITY FOR JUST DECISION - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Raghbir Singh and another, were acquitted in a corruption case due to lack of proper sanction. However, they were again put on trial after the prosecution obtained fresh sanction. The prosecution closed its evidence in September 1993, and the petitioners' statements were recorded in September 1993. The defense evidence was to be presented, but the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to produce additional evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the power granted to the court under Section 311 CrPC should not be exercised to the disadvantage of the accused, especially when the defense has been closed. The court noted that the petitioners had been facing trial for over seven years and that the vagaries of the criminal trial had taken a toll on them. The court further observed that the prosecution should have produced all its evidence before closing its case and that allowing additional evidence at this stage would be prejudicial to the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the court can permit the prosecution to produce additional evidence under Section 311 CrPC after the defense has closed its case? 2. Whether allowing additional evidence at this stage would be prejudicial to the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 311 CrPC and held that the power to summon additional witnesses or examine persons present should be exercised judiciously and should not be used to the disadvantage of the accused. The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the need to ensure that both the prosecution and the accused have an equal opportunity to present their evidence. The court also considered the fact that the petitioners had been facing trial for a long time and that allowing additional evidence at this stage would further delay the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, Amritsar, permitting the prosecution to produce additional evidence. However, the court directed the State to complete the production of additional evidence within two adjournments after receiving the order.
M.L.Singhal, J.
1. Raghbir Singh and another were facing trial in case FIR No. 215 of 1985, P.S. Verowal, under Section 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar vested with the powers to try cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. They were acquitted after trial by Sh. I.C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 25.9.1986 for want of proper sanction. He did not advert to the merits of the case and the factual position thereof. It was mentioned that the appropriate authorities would be at liberty to launch fresh prosecution against them after procuring proper sanction, if they so chose.
3. Raghbir Singh and another became again arraigned before the Court. On 24.9.93 PW was examined and the prosecution evidence was closed. Case was posted to 30.9.93 for the statements of the accused.
4. On 30.9.1993, the statements of the accused were recorded and the case was posted for defence evidence to 7.10.93. On 7.10.93, 19.10.93, 26.10.93, 29.10.93, 4.11.93, 9.11.93, 25.11.93, 9.12.93, 20.12.93, 7.1.94, 14.1.94, 31.1.94, 14.2.94, 18.3.94, 5.4.94, 23.4.94, 29.4.94, 11.5.94, 30.5.94, 6.7.94, 29.7.94 and 1.9.94 no defence evidence was present. On 1.9.94, the case was posted to 16.9.94 for defence evidence. On 16.9.94, the public prosecutor for the State made an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a view to permit him to produce some evidence. On 6.10.94, Special Judge, Amritsar allowed the prayer of the Public Prosecutor for the State and permitted him to produce evidence. It is this order dated 6.10.94 passed by the Special Judge, Amritsar, the quashing of which Raghbir Singh and another are seeking through the present criminal writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They have also desired the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar in case FIR No. 215 of 1985, P.S. Verowal (ibid).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they were facing trial since September 1986. They were acquitted by the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 25.9.86 for want of proper sanction. After procuring fresh sanction, they were challaned and put up on trial. They are facing trial again since 1987. Prosecution closed evidence on 24.9.93. Till 24.9.93 the vagaries of criminal trial were hanging on the shoulders of the accused since September 1986. They were, thus, before the criminal court for 7 years. Criminal trial should not take so long. Vagaries of trial sap the very vitality not only of the undertrial, but of the entire family. They became physically and mentally bankrupt.
7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sh. I.C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Amritsar acquitted the accused vide order dated 25.9.86 for want of proper sanction. He observed that they could be put up at trial after procuring proper sanction. He forgot that it was for the prosecution to have put them up on trial after proper sanction. If there was no proper sanction, they ought to have been acquitted forthwith. Object of criminal trial is to vindicate the criminal law and not to harass the accused over again. The accused spurned the order of Sh. I.C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Amritsar and gracefully agreed to be put up on trial. They were put up on trial in the year 1987. On 24.9.93, the prosecution closed their evidence, on 30.9.93, the statements of the accused were recorded. Case was posted to innumerable times for the defence evidence. They were before the Court for defence evidence for almost 25 times. When they had been before the Court for 25 times in connection with the producing of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
