Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 418 (JHR)

Rajendra Pandey v. State of Jharkhand through CBI

2009-03-23

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the CBI. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is facing trial in a case bearing R.C. No.53(A) of 1996 filed an application after prosecution closed its case for allowing him to adduce defence witness which was allowed on 7.12.2007. Thereafter the court fell vacant and it remained vacant from January, 2008 till June, 2008 and then other accused persons started adducing their evidence which went on till 12.12.2008 and on that day the case of the defence was closed and under these circumstances, the petitioner could not adduce his defence witness. Thereafter argument on behalf of prosecution got started on 9.1.2009, on which date the petitioner again filed an application for allowing him to adduce defence witnesses which application was posted for hearing on 12.1.2009. On that day, the application was rejected on the plea that in spite of sufficient opportunity being given to the petitioner to adduce defence witness he failed to adduce his evidence but that finding given by the court below in the background of the events stated above does not appear to be correct as it has already been demonstrated that the petitioner was never given adequate opportunity to adduce his evidence and, therefore, one opportunity be given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence whereby he will himself examine as defence witness. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the impugned order does speak that sufficient opportunity was given to the defence and hence petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. It was further submitted that the application for adducing defence witness had already been allowed wayback on 17.12.2008, but he did not adduce any witness rather waited for the case to be closed and thereafter when the case was closed again application was filed which amply speaks about the dilatory attitude of the petitioner. However, this submission was replied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the facts and circumstances stated above, would itself indicate that the petitioner never adopted any dilatory attitude. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the submission, I do find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner could not be afforded with sufficient opportunity to adduce his defence witness. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the submission, I do find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner could not be afforded with sufficient opportunity to adduce his defence witness. In that event, the petitioner deserves atleast one opportunity to adduce his witness. Learned counsel submits that he will take only one day in adducing his evidence. Since the argument has already been started on behalf of the prosecution, as has been told to the court, the petitioner would adduce evidence on the day when he will be starting his argument . With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.