2005 (9) TMI 627 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order dismissing the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. seeking recall of panch witnesses for examination.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a petition challenging the order dated 16.3.2005, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 311, Cr.P.C., seeking to recall the panch witnesses for examination. The prosecution alleged that a significant amount of Indian currency was recovered from the respondent in a systematic manner while he was proceeding to Hong Kong. The charge was framed against the respondent, who pleaded not guilty. The petitioner's defense included the argument that the non-examination of the panch witnesses rendered the prosecution unsustainable. The petitioner sought permission to examine the panch witnesses, stating that their whereabouts were now known, although the application was considered belated and was declined on that basis.

The petitioner contended that the delay in moving the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was not intentional, and the examination of the panch witnesses was not essential as the seizure was conducted by officials in the line of duty. The application was also described as a precautionary measure. However, the respondent's counsel argued against the application, highlighting that the accused had previously sought to call the panch witnesses after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence. The trial court had dismissed the application, emphasizing that it was not the court's duty to collect evidence for the parties. The court noted that the complainant had not produced the panch witnesses, and the legal consequences of this non-production would be borne by the complainant.

Ultimately, the court found no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 16.3.2005, which declined the petitioner's application to recall the panch witnesses. The court dismissed the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., based on the facts and circumstances of the case, indicating that there was no justification for interference with the order.