9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Revision against order of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate directing examination of important witnesses and documents in a forgery case.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged an order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate directing the examination of the Collector, Investigating Officer, and Handwriting Expert after closure of prosecution evidence in a forgery case. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 465/471, I.P.C. related to appearing in an interview for a lecturer position with an allegedly forged 'interview card'. The Magistrate's order aimed at ensuring a just decision by examining crucial witnesses and documents. The petitioner contended that examining prosecution witnesses after closing evidence and before recording the accused's statement could prejudice the case, citing legal precedents. The State argued that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to pass such an order, relying on relevant case laws. 2. The High Court analyzed the legal position on the issue, citing precedents like Jamatraj Kewalji Govani and Krupasindhu Pothal cases. The Court emphasized that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. confers wide powers on the Court to examine any witness as a Court witness at any stage of the trial if it deems necessary for a just decision. The Court highlighted that summoning witnesses to fill evidentiary gaps is permissible if essential for a fair trial. The Court also noted that the Magistrate has a duty to ensure all necessary witnesses are examined for a just decision, even if the prosecution fails to produce them. 3. The Court found that the Magistrate did not err in passing the impugned order, especially in a forgery case where document examination is crucial. Since the accused's statement was not recorded at the time, the Court ruled out any prejudice to the petitioner. Despite the case's delay, the Court dismissed the revision, affirming the lower court's order. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case within six months, emphasizing the importance of timely justice delivery in such matters.
|
