2001 (11) TMI 1051 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment and order dated 03.7.2000 by High Court of Patna
- Closure of prosecution evidence by learned Sessions Judge
- Transfer of the case to 2nd Additional Sessions Judge
- Challenge of the order by accused in Criminal Revision No.530 of 1995
- Rejection of application under Section 311 of CrPC by Addl. Sessions Judge
- Filing of Criminal Misc. No.16453 of 2000 before High Court
- Failure to inform police station officer-in-charge about trial proceedings
- Duty of the Sessions Judge and APP in a murder trial
- Interpretation of Section 311 of CrPC
- Setting aside the order dated 2.6.2000 by the High Court

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was filed against the judgment and order dated 03.7.2000 by the High Court of Patna, confirming the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya. The appellant contended that his mother was killed by the accused, leading to charges under various sections of the IPC. The prosecution evidence was closed by the learned Sessions Judge without any request for adjournment or further witnesses from the APP. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, who recalled the order closing the prosecution evidence. The accused challenged this decision in Criminal Revision No.530 of 1995 before the High Court, which set aside the order of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge.

The State then filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC for examining witnesses, which was rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge on the grounds of the High Court's previous order. The appellant then filed Criminal Misc. No.16453 of 2000 before the High Court, which was dismissed. The failure to inform the police station officer-in-charge about trial proceedings was highlighted, indicating a lack of coordination in the case. The duty of the Sessions Judge and APP in a murder trial was emphasized, stressing the importance of ensuring the presence of witnesses and preventing the frustration of the prosecution.

The interpretation of Section 311 of the CrPC was crucial in this case, with the Court emphasizing its wide amplitude to summon material witnesses essential for a just decision. The Court cited previous judgments to support the view that the function of the criminal court is to administer justice, not to focus on errors or party performance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and directing the Sessions Judge to proceed with the case diligently, adhering to the provisions of the CrPC and ensuring the presence of witnesses for examination.