Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 950 (MP)

Amit Sachin v. State of M. P.

2012-10-01

S.K.GANGELE

body2012
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.8.2012 passed by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No.216/2007. 2. The petitioner is facing a criminal trial for an offence punishable under section 201 of IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in preparing the document to the effect that one of the accused Kallu was present in a case under section 34 of the M.P. Excise Act at Jabalpur at the relevant point of time. Aforesaid accused Kallu was involved in murder of brother of Hariom, who lodged an FIR. In Sessions Trial No.216/2007, the Sessions Court rejected the plea of alibi of Kallu and awarded a sentence. The petitioner is facing trial for an offence under section 201 of the IPC. The prosecution moved an application under section 311 of the CrPC before the trial Court to the effect that Hariom be called as a witness, because he had lodged the FIR in regard to murder of his brother, in which, accused Kallu was involved. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he had entered into conspiracy to prove the fact that accused Kallu was present at Jabalpur at the relevant point of time in connection with an offence under section 34 of the M.P. Excise Act, that application has been allowed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has passed the order without jurisdiction and the provisions of section 311 of CrPC in the present facts of the case are not applicable. 4. In the present case, it is a fact that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he was involved in preparation of a forged document to the effect that accused Kallu was present at Jabalpur at the relevant point of time in connection with an offence under section 34 of M.P. Excise Act. Witness Hariom lodged the FIR to the effect that accused Kallu at the relevant point of time had murdered his brother in an incident which took place at Gola-ka-Mandir, Gwalior. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly ordered to summon Hariom as witness, so the fact can be brought into the notice of the Court that what is the truth. 5. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly ordered to summon Hariom as witness, so the fact can be brought into the notice of the Court that what is the truth. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [ (2011)8 SCC 136 ], has considered the powers of the trial Judge vested under section 311 of the CrPC and held as under : “There is no manner of doubt that the power under section 311 CrPC is a vast one. This power can be exercised at any stage of the trial. Such a power should be exercised provided the evidence which may be tendered by a witness is germane to the issue involved, or if proper evidence is not adduced or relevant material is not brought on record due to any inadvertence. It hardly needs to be emphasised that power under section 311 should be exercised for the just decision of the case. The wide discretion conferred on the Court to summon a witness must be exercised judicially, as wider the power, the greater is that necessary for the application of the judicial mind. Whether to exercise the power or not would largely depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As is provided in the section, power to summon any person as a witness can be exercised if the Court forms an opinion that the examination of such a witness is essential for the just decision of the case. Though section 311 confers vast discretion upon the Court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of CrPC and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the Court and not arbitrarily or capriciously.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2012)7 SCC 56 ], has specifically observed after considering the three Judges’ judgment of this Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira [ (2012)5 SCC 370 ], that the discovery of truth is the essential purpose of any trial or enquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “22. Discovery of the truth is the essential purpose of any trial or enquiry, observed a three Judge Bench of this Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (supra). A timely reminder of that solemn duty was given in the following words : “35. What people expect is that the Court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purpose underlying the exercise of the Courts of justice.” 7. In the present case, after perusal of the order, I have gathered that the trial Judge has passed the order keeping in mind that the truth has to ascertain and it is the prime object of a trial. In my opinion, the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law. Hence, I do not find any merit in this criminal revision. It is hereby dismissed.