Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 408 (MP)

Ram Prasad v. State of M. P.

2011-03-31

G.D.SAXENA

body2011
ORDER 1. By the instant application under section 482 of CrPC the applicant has challenged the order dated 11.3.2011 passed in case No. 312011 by Special judge, Guna whereby application under section 309 of CrPC filed by the applicant for granting two days time for cross-examination of investigating officer on the ground that the certified copies of the statements of the witnesses could not be delivered to the counsel for the applicant was rejected and prosecution evidence was closed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as the other relevant documents filed alongwith the application under section 482 of CrPC. 3. Section 309 of CrPC reads as under : “309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings : (1) in every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendence have been examined, unless the Court finds that adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: (2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may from time to time for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody. Provided, that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time. Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him. Explanation 1 -- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Explanation 1 -- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Explanation 2 -- The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused." 4. In view of above, the cause as shown by the applicant seems to be reasonable and, therefore, it is directed that on payment of cost of Rs. 250/- by the applicant within fifteen days from the date of this order, the trial Court shall call the Investigating Officer for his cross-examination on the date to be fixed by the trial Court itself. 5. With the aforesaid, this application under section 482 of CrPC is allowed and disposed of.