Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 25002
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
NILESH DEVJIBHAI VASANI – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4782 of 2017
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MP SHAH(2418) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
The court upheld the principle that procedural mistakes can be rectified before judgment, but emphasized the need to consider potential prejudice to the defense when allowing late applications for document production.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 and Section 311 - Petition to quash order rejecting application for production of documents - The learned Trial Court rejected the application for production of important documents due to oversight by the Additional Public Prosecutor - The court emphasized the need for fair opportunity to lead evidence and the principle that mistakes can be rectified before judgment - The application was rejected on grounds of belatedness and potential prejudice to the defense. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 7)
(B) Fair Opportunity - The court reiterated that both parties must be given a fair opportunity to present evidence, and that procedural mistakes should not perpetuate injustice. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the State, challenged the rejection of an application for producing three crucial documents related to a criminal case, which were not submitted due to oversight by the Additional Public Prosecutor. The documents were deemed essential for establishing facts regarding the involvement of the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Trial Court did not err in rejecting the application, as allowing it would prejudice the defense and delay the trial.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for document production and the implications of allowing such an application at a late stage in the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while applications to produce documents can be made at any stage, the timing and potential prejudice to the defense must be considered, and the Trial Court's decision was upheld.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of preferring present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the petitioner - State has prayed to quash and set aside the order impugned dated 11.04.2017 passed below Exh.60 in Sessions Case No.114 of 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application preferred by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for production of documents.
2. Heard learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the petitioner.
3. Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi submits that learned Additional Public Prosecutor has tendered one application specifically stating that at the time of submission of list of documents, three documents viz. (i) letter written by one S. M. Baria, ASI, Katargam Police Station, Surat to PSI Shri R. G. Chaudhari of the said police station to takeover the investigation papers of Janvajog entry; (ii) letter written by PSO Chaudhary to ASI Sanabhai M. Baria to takeover the investigation having regard to one telephonic message received from Dr. Sanjay Vala, Ayushya Hospital about consumption of acid by one patient viz. Jyotsanaben Jayeshbhai and (iii) the statement of injured victim/ deceased Jyotsanaben Jayeshbhai containing her own signature recorded by ASI Shri S. M. Baria, Katargam Police Station, Surat, have not been brought on record. The said documents are very important piece of evidence to bring correct facts on record, which, prima facie, proves the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of crime and it seems that through inadvertence, the said important piece of evidence has not been brought on record along with the list of documents. As and when the said mistake has come to the notice of the learned Public Prosecutor, he has preferred application below Exh.60. The learned Trial Court has, after considering and appreciating the averments made in the memo of the said application and other material available on record, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, State has preferred present petition.
4. Learned APP Mr. Joshi submits that the order impugned passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence available on record as well as settled principle of criminal justice. Hence, the said order is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned APP Mr. Joshi submits that it is settled proposition of law that fair opportunity of leading evidence is required to be given to both the parties. Admittedly, due to oversight inadvertently blatant mistake might have been committed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who failed to produce the copy of important piece of evidence along with the list of documents and as soon as the said fact has come to the notice of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, immediately, he has preferred the application with a sole intent to rectify the said mistake.
5. Learned APP Mr. Joshi has put reliance upon Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that it is settled proposition of law that said application can be preferred and entertained at any point of time before the pronouncement of the judgment. He further submits that if the said application would be allowed, in that event, no prejudice is going to cause to the defence as defence has got all valuable rights of further cross- examination of the said witnesses on the strength of the said material. He further submits that learned Additional Public Prosecutor has, by way of preferring the application, tried to bring true and correct facts on record but the said application has not been entertained by the learned Judge for the reasons best known to him. The reasons assigned by the learned Court concerned are not in consonance with the provisions of law.
6. Learned APP Mr. Joshi submits that learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that aforesaid three documents were not available in the papers of charge-sheet
