Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – The petitioner filed an application u/s.311 of the CrPC/Code for summoning two persons, viz., V and K – The Trial Court partly allowed the application and issued summons to the witness-V and directed him to be present on 30.05.2024 – The record of order/proceedings of 30.05.2024 is not available – Thereafter, on 05.06.2024, though the witness was present, an application was moved by the counsel for petitioner on the ground of illness and the matter was posted for the next day as last opportunity to examine the witness – On 06.06.2024, the witness-V was absent and the trial Court closed the opportunity to examine the said witness – Aggrieved by the orders dated 18.05.2024 and 06.06.2024, the petitioner filed application u/s.482 of CrPC before the High Court, which was dismissed:
Held: From the above sequence of events, it is crystal clear that the defence was given ample opportunity to examine the witness-V – The onus was on them to ensure his presence and examine him – This Court does not agree with the argument advanced the petitioner that since the witness was arrayed in the list of prosecution witnesses, it was incumbent on the prosecution to examine him in the first instance – It is also noted that the said witness never entered the witness box as a prosecution witness, and he was summoned as an independent witness on application made by the petitioner – The statements of the accused persons u/s.313 of the Code were recorded on 01.05.2023 – The first application u/s. 311 of the Code filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court on 25.08.2023 and the matter was posted for defence evidence on 10.09.2023 – Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application under Section
311 of the Code on 19.09.2023 – Earlier, the High Court vide order dated 25.07.2022 had directed expeditious decision in the trial – In this factual background, the petitioner cannot be permitted to adopt dilatory tactics and delay the conclusion of the trial – The conduct of the petitioner in preferring successive applications under Section
311 of the Code and seeking adjournments goes to show his evasive tactics, non-cooperation and disinterest in early conclusion of the trial – This is the abuse of the process of law – There is no infirmity with the impugned order. [Paras 19, 20]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.