2016 (8) TMI 11 - HC - Central Excise

Offences punishable under Sections 9 and 9AA of Central Excise Act - an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed by the petitioner seeking recalling of the witnesses. The same was dismissed - Though the complainant/petitioner pressed an application for withdrawal of show cause notice to Joint Commissioner, Excise but did not bother to examine the witnesses. The petitioner was more concerned about the waiver of the cost imposed and exemption of the Joint Commissioner from personal appearance. - Held that - no time frame for conclusion of the trial can be fixed however the same does not take away the power of the Trial Court to close the evidence if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant. The decision in P. Ramachandra Rao (supra) and Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak AIR 1992 SC 1701 preserve the right of an accused for a speedy trial. Thus if despite repeated opportunities witnesses are not brought by the prosecution or defense and the Trial Court closes its evidence, it commits no illegality. During the course of arguments this Court raised a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he was in a position to produce all its witnesses expeditiously on one or two dates, when the learned counsel for petitioner was clueless as it was not even known as to how many witnesses are now available for examination. Considering the conduct of the complainant during trial, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Petition dismissed - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the order dismissing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Continuous non-appearance of witnesses.
Speedy trial concerns.
Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Judicial discretion in closing evidence.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order dismissing their application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which sought to recall witnesses. The Trial Court's order reflected continuous non-appearance of witnesses despite multiple opportunities provided over several years. The petitioner's focus seemed more on procedural matters like waiver of imposed costs and exemption for the Joint Commissioner, rather than ensuring witness examination.

2. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring a speedy trial. The case had been pending for over 7 years with only 5 out of 13 witnesses examined, and that too only partly. The Trial Court's decision aligned with the Supreme Court's directive in P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the need for expeditious proceedings and the power to impose costs for adjournments.

3. The Supreme Court rulings highlighted the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent unreasonable delays and ensure the accused's rights are protected. The Court can use its inherent powers under Section 482 to address delays or abuse of process. The judgment underscored the necessity for vigilant trial judges to safeguard the right to a speedy trial and the High Court's jurisdiction to intervene if required.

4. While acknowledging the absence of infirmity in the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court noted the petitioner's lack of readiness to produce witnesses promptly during trial. The judgment concluded by dismissing the petition and instructing the Trial Court to proceed with the matter lawfully, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion in managing evidence and trial proceedings effectively.