Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1917 (GUJ)

Kiran Somaiya Chelmalla v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-02

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2016
ORDER : J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: On 12th August 2016, the following order was passed: “Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, dated 05/08/2016, the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Surat, conducting the Sessions Case No. 241 of 2015 has forwarded his report as regards the status of the Sessions Case No. 241 of 2015. The report is quite vague. The report talks about the complainant filing an application Exh.15 requesting the trial Court to permit him to engage his own advocate to conduct the trial. The report further states that on 1st December 2015, one Mr. K. S. Desai, the learned advocate appeared on behalf of the original complainant and recorded the depositions of the P.W.3 and P.W.4 I just fail to understand who is this Mr. K. S. Desai. How a private advocate engaged by the complainant is recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The report is very very confusing and is not making the picture clear. This Court would also like to know how many more witnesses are to be examined and how much more time is likely to be consumed before the recording of the evidence is closed. The learned 6th Additional District Judge, Surat, owes an explanation in this regard. He shall forward his explanation in writing at the earliest. In the meantime, Mr. Patel, the learned APP is also requested to take proper instructions from the Investigating Officer as regards the conduct of the trial and how many more witnesses are yet to be examined. Necessary clarification of the aforesaid aspects is very much required. The Registry is directed to inform about this order today itself by Fax to the Court concerned and call for the report. A copy of this order shall also be provided to Mr. Patel, the learned APP for its onwards communication. Post the matter on 19/08/2016.” 2. I do not find any report of the trial Court after the order referred to above was passed. Ms. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, states that in all 39 witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet. Till this date, 17 witnesses have been examined and 22 witnesses are yet to be examined. The applicant is in judicial custody since 5thNovember 2014. Ms. Shah pointed out that the evidence of all the evidence of all the important witnesses have been recorded. Till this date, 17 witnesses have been examined and 22 witnesses are yet to be examined. The applicant is in judicial custody since 5thNovember 2014. Ms. Shah pointed out that the evidence of all the evidence of all the important witnesses have been recorded. Few relatives residing in Telangana have been cited as witnesses and the prosecution proposes to examine them. The next date fixed by the trial Court is 14th September 2016. On that day, four panch witnesses have been summoned. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is in custody since 5th November 2014 and as a two and a half years old child who is being looked after by the parents of the applicant, I expect the trial Court to make all possible endeavours to see that the recording of the evidence is completed by the end of this month, i.e. 30th September 2016, since the witnesses are to come from Telangana is no ground to delay the trial. It is for the prosecution to ensure the presence of the witnesses. 4. For the present, post this matter on 23rd September 2016. The further progress in the trial shall be reported on that day.