9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders dated 25.01.2011 and 9.12.2011 passed by ACMM, New Delhi in complaint case no. 277/1/1993 titled DRI Vs. Raghubir Singh and Ors. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Closure of Evidence The order closing the post charge evidence was challenged by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The petitioner contended that the closure was unwarranted as the delay was not their fault. They argued that the witnesses were essential for a just decision, citing a relevant case. The Court noted the delay of 14 years in adducing pre-charge evidence and emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The prosecution was expected to be vigilant post charge framing and produce witnesses for cross-examination. The petitioner failed to produce witnesses despite opportunities, leading to the closure of post charge evidence. Issue 2: Examination of Witnesses After framing charges, the petitioner sought to examine ten witnesses, claiming their testimony was crucial. However, the Court clarified that post charge, the petitioner could only cross-examine witnesses examined pre-charge. Filing an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. to fill the evidentiary gap was deemed inappropriate. The Court also noted the petitioner's belated challenge of the closure order and the error in challenging two different orders in the same petition. Conclusion: The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures. The Trial Court record was to be returned.
|
