2012 (5) TMI 194 - HC - Customs

Cost paid for grant of further opportunity to accused - appellant contested that no provision in the Cr.P.C under which this cost can be imposed by Court and be given to the accused persons and when accused have been substantially responsible for the delay and by directing the payment of costs to them, it will be putting premium on their conduct - Held that - Since Petitioner has stated that he has no objection to the deposit of cost with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the accused persons also confirming such payment - Let the cost be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee by the petitioner. Evidence of the petitioner ought not to have been closed - Held that - Even after framing of the charges against the respondents, sufficient number of opportunities had been given by the Court and even one final opportunity was given to the petitioner - If the petitioner did not complete its evidence, despite the final opportunity having been given, it cannot be said that the evidence of the petitioner had been erroneously closed - two decades having gone by, it cannot be said that the right, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the respondents, is being observed in letter and spirit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of costs on the petitioner for adjournment in a criminal case.
2. Closure of petitioner's evidence by the Trial Court and the subsequent challenge.

Issue 1: Imposition of costs on the petitioner for adjournment:
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 13.7.2010 and 28.1.2011, where a cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed for adjournment granted for the production of Prosecution evidence. The petitioner contended that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for imposing such costs on the Prosecution and giving it to the accused persons. The petitioner sought to set aside the portion of the order directing the payment of costs to the accused. The respondent's counsel had no objection if the cost was paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The High Court agreed that costs imposed on the Prosecution should not be given to the accused and set aside the portion of the order, directing the petitioner to deposit the cost with the Legal Services Committee.

Issue 2: Closure of petitioner's evidence by the Trial Court:
The petitioner's evidence was closed by the Trial Court on 28.1.2011, leading to a challenge by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the evidence should not have been closed as their application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed, permitting them to produce four witnesses. The Court was supposed to procure the witnesses' attendance once they were served. The respondent contended that the case had been pending for over 21 years, and the Trial Court rightly closed the evidence as the petitioner failed to ensure the witnesses' presence. The High Court observed that every accused has the right to an expeditious trial, emphasizing Article 21 of the Constitution. Despite opportunities given, the petitioner failed to complete evidence, and the Trial Court's decision to close the evidence was upheld. The petition challenging the closure of evidence was also found to be delayed, impacting its validity.

In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the petition regarding the payment of costs to the accused but upheld the Trial Court's decision to close the petitioner's evidence. The importance of expeditious trials and adherence to procedural timelines were highlighted, emphasizing the need for timely legal actions and compliance with court directives.