Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 570 (ORI)

SRI GURU PRASAD DAS v. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

2002-09-03

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2002
JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Affidavit of the petitioner is filed in which he has provided the present address of the P.Ws. 4 and 5. 2. Heard. 3. In this application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner has challenged order dated 17.7.2002 of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.)-cum-Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar passed in SP.E. Case No. 16/94 and the confirming order of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Bhubaneswar vide the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2002 in Criminal Revision No. 45/02 of 47/02. 4. Petitioner's prayer is to get the indulgence of this Court in exercise of the power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for issue of a direction to the trial Court in allowing to recall P.Ws. 4 and 5 for the purpose of further cross-examination. As it appears from the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge petitioner's prayer to recall P.Ws. 1 to 5 and another for cross-examination was allowed in part by the trial Court on 7.3.2002 by directing petitioner to deposit cost of Rs. 1,000/- for recalling P.Ws. 4 and 5 for further cross-examination. Instead of complying with that direction, petitioner remained absent and therefore, N.B.W.A. was issued against him. On 15.7.2002, petitioner was released on bail after he surrendered and thereafter he came up with the petition with the prayer to allow him to deposit the cost and to recall the witnesses and that prayer was refused by the trial Court so also by the revisional Court. 5. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that the manner in which the petitioner has taken steps that indicates that the sole object of the petitioner is to delay the trial and apart from that when the trial has come to an end and only argument was to be heard and judgment to be delivered, therefore, at such stage, no indulgence should be granted. Revisional Court has also observed that if the petitioner gets an order of acquittal the aforesaid grievance will remain solved and on the other hand, if the trial terminates against him, petitioner may ventilate his grievance before the. appellate Court. 6. It is stated at the Bar that the case is posted to tomorrow for judgment. Therefore, at such a stage of the proceeding this Court does not intend to invoke the inherent power to off set the concluded trial. appellate Court. 6. It is stated at the Bar that the case is posted to tomorrow for judgment. Therefore, at such a stage of the proceeding this Court does not intend to invoke the inherent power to off set the concluded trial. Of course that is not the sole reason to refuse the prayer to recall the two P.Ws. The other reason is that petitioner having availed the revisional jurisdiction u/s 397, Cr.P.C. cannot agitate on the same issue in the High Court by preferring a 2nd revision application in the name of an application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. because Sub-section (3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. which bars a second revision by the same revision petitioner. Apart from that this Court does not find any illegality in the orders of the Courts below which can be terminated as illegal on unjustified or in gross-violation of the principle of natural justice. In a 8 years old case when the petitioner was granted with the indulgence to recall P.Ws. 4 and 5 for further cross-examination, he should have honestly, sincerely and deligently taken appropriate steps in time to avail that opportunity if there was genuineness in his pursuit for further cross-examination of P.Ws. 4 and 5. Instead of doing that petitioner adopted an unappreciated course of defaulting in his appearance so as to give a new lease of life to his prayer for recall of P.Ws. 4 and 5. When Courts are burdened with huge number of criminal cases and particularly huge number of years old cases, petitioner's attitude in recalling witnesses at his pleasure must not be considered with liberal attitude. Latitude of the Court in the manner the petitioner wants should not be granted to him at least for the cause of justice which is not only pracious to him but also to the prosecution. Under such circumstance, this Court finds no reason to invoke the inherent power for the purpose of setting aside the impugned orders of the courts below. Accordingly, the application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. stands rejected.