9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1973 - SC - Indian LawsRe-summon of witnesses - permitting the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by examination of one witness Mr. H.S. Tuteja - whenever a date is fixed for examining Mr. H.S. Tuteja, he would fail to turn up and the prosecution would invariably come up with a petition either praying for time or for adjournment of the matter - HELD THAT - Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) provides for the power of the court to summon material witness or examination person present - It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for reexamination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law. In the instant case, the case was registered in the year 1983. 29 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The application of the prosecution to examine Mr. H.S. Tuteja was allowed in the year 2004. However, prosecution has failed to keep him in court for his examination. Thereafter, multiple applications have been filed to summon him and all of them have been allowed. However, the prosecution has failed to procure his attendance in the court. - As mentioned earlier, on 28.07.2011 the High Court of Calcutta gave the prosecution a last opportunity to procure his attendance and declared that in case of failure on the part of the CBI to procure the attendance of witnesses and get them examined, the Trial Court will proceed further with the trial without granting any further adjournment to the CBI. Even thereafter, the applications filed by the CBI have been allowed - On 15.09.2014, yet again, the High Court in a criminal revision application observed that since the trial is pending for a long time, steps must be taken by the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. Even thereafter, the trial court has allowed the application filed by the prosecution for summoning Mr. H.S. Tuteja, which order has been confirmed by the High Court. In our view, the High Court ought to have accepted the appeal and rejected the application of the prosecution for summoning the witness, Mr. H.S. Tuteja. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order permitting examination of witness Mr. H.S. Tuteja by Trial Court and High Court. Analysis: The appellant challenged the order passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, allowing the examination of witness Mr. H.S. Tuteja in a case dating back to 1983. The Trial Court permitted the examination of the witness despite repeated failures on his part to appear in court, leading to multiple adjournments over the years. The power to summon witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary and should only be exercised when essential to the just decision of the case. The court must consider strong and valid reasons before summoning a witness, and the power should not be used if it causes prejudice to the accused or if the application is an abuse of the legal process. The High Court had previously given the prosecution multiple opportunities to produce the witness, emphasizing the need to conclude the trial expeditiously. Despite these directives, the Trial Court continued to allow applications for summoning the witness, leading to further delays in the trial proceedings. The High Court's observations regarding the pending trial and the need for swift conclusion were not effectively implemented by the Trial Court. The repeated failures of the witness to appear in court and the prosecution's inability to ensure his presence raised serious concerns about the misuse of the legal process and the delay in justice delivery. In light of the prolonged delay, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in allowing the application for summoning the witness Mr. H.S. Tuteja. The Court emphasized the importance of concluding trials expeditiously and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of the High Court and Trial Court, and dismissed the application for summoning the witness. This decision aimed to prevent further delays in the trial and ensure a just and timely resolution of the case.
|
