Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 331 (ORI)

Madhab Maharana v. State of Orissa

2006-04-25

A.S.NAIDU

body2006
ORDER 25.4.2006 — Heard 2. Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC the petitioners have filed this CRLMC seeking to quash the order dated 1.10.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T. (SS) No.326 of 2004/ 1 of 2004. The petitioners are admittedly facing trial for alleged commission of the of¬fences under Sections 147/148/323/307/506/149 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. The trial has already commenced and some witnesses have already been examined. At this juncture two petitions were filed before the Court below, one under Section 233 CrPC with prayer to summon five witnesses being the Secretary to Government in the Home Department, IIC of Dhenkanal Town P.S., OIC of Motanga P.S. and two others, namely, Kirtan Sahu and Minaketan Sahu; and the other under Section 91 CrPC praying to call for some documents from the Under Secretary to Government of Orissa, Home Department and the OIC of Motanga P.S. The Court below has disposed of both the aforesaid petitions by a common order which is impugned in this case. 3. According to the petitioners though they had filed an FIR before the OIC, Motanga P.S., the said officer being influ¬enced by the informant in the present case did not proceed with the said FIR, and at the other hand proceeded against the peti¬tioners on the basis of an FIR filed by the informant making false and frivolous allegations. The petitioners have averred that a number of documents are there which would reveal that the informant party are real accused and the petitioners are innocent persons. It is further averred that the witness sought to be summoned will produce the relevant documents in support of their defence. The Court below however after discussing the materials available on record came to the conclusion that issuing summons to official witnesses like Under Secretary to Government in the Home Department, IIC of Dhenkanal Town P.S. and the OIC of Motan¬ga P.S. was not necessary and rather that would not only delay the proceeding of the case but also would be an vexatious at¬tempt. The Court below however allowed the petitioners to examine Kirtan Sahu and Minaketan Sahu as their witnesses. 4. I have perused the impugned order and other materials on record. Law is well settled that accused should be given opportunity to adduce his evidence. Even according to the peti¬tioners there are several documents which would reveal their innocence. The Court below however allowed the petitioners to examine Kirtan Sahu and Minaketan Sahu as their witnesses. 4. I have perused the impugned order and other materials on record. Law is well settled that accused should be given opportunity to adduce his evidence. Even according to the peti¬tioners there are several documents which would reveal their innocence. If the said fact is true, it will be open to them to produce certified copies of those documents and get the same exhibited in consonance with the Evidence Act. Calling for offi¬cial witnesses of the ranks as stated above only for the purpose of production of certain documents would not be just and proper and that may rather delay the proceeding of the case. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and I am therefore not inclined to interfere with the same. I dispose of this CRLMC granting liberty to the petitioners to produce certi¬fied copies of the relevant documents which they want to rely upon and get the same exhibited in consonance with law, if they are so advised. CRLMC disposed of.