Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1756 (JHR)

Ramesh Chandra Pandey v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-10-09

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – This application is directed against the order dated 22.8.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 19 of 1986(P), whereby and where-under prayer of the petitioner under section 315 Cr.P.C., 1973 as also the petition under section 294 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been rejected. 2. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner wants to be examined as a defence witness, for which an application under section 315 Cr.P.C., 1973 was filed. It has further been submitted that prosecution has taken almost 19 years to conclude the evidence and without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, evidence of the defence witness has been closed. It has also been submitted that if one opportunity is given to the petitioner to depose as a defence witness, the defence shall conclude the argument on the same day, on which date, the petitioner is examined as a defence witness. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that evidence of other co-accused persons have been concluded and so far as present petitioner is concerned, argument is on the verge of conclusion. 3. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the C.B.I., has opposed the prayer made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and referring to the counter affidavit has stated that fate of other two cases is dependent on R.C. Case No. 19/1986 (P). It has been submitted that earlier also, petitioner had made prayer to get himself examined, which has been rejected by the learned trial court and therefore prayer of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. 4. It appears that charges were framed on 8.9.1994 and thereafter twenty one witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Prosecution evidences were closed on 10.5.2013 and the case was posted for recording the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 7.6.2013. Statements of the accused persons were recorded on 25.7.2013 and the case was posted for defence evidence on 24.8.2013. Since defence could not produce their evidence by 19.8.2015, evidence was closed on 14.12.2015 and the case was posted for argument. At this stage, an application under section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 was filed on behalf of the defence to recall P.W-3 for further re-examination. However, same was rejected by the learned trial court. Since defence could not produce their evidence by 19.8.2015, evidence was closed on 14.12.2015 and the case was posted for argument. At this stage, an application under section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 was filed on behalf of the defence to recall P.W-3 for further re-examination. However, same was rejected by the learned trial court. Subsequently, an application under section 315 Cr.P.C., 1973 read with section 311 Cr.P.C , 1973and Section 118 of the Evidence Act was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Although copy of the said application is not on record but the same has been produced by Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the bar and which has been perused. It appears from perusal of the said application that petitioner wants to produce documents with regard to ledge/statement of account and the correspondence made between him and United Bank of India, Bokaro Steel City, Industrial Branch at Chas with regard to transaction in the account No. 606. 5. Prayer of the petitioner appears to be reasonable moreover, in view of the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he undertakes to conclude his argument on the date petitioner is examined as a defence witness. Since prosecution had taken 19 years to conclude the evidence, it would be in the fitness of things that petitioner be allowed to be examined as a witness. 6. In such circumstances, therefore, while setting aside the order dated 22.8.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 19 of 1986(P), with respect to rejecting the application under section 315 Cr.P.C., 1973 learned trial court is directed to examine the petitioner as a defence witness on the next date fixed. Apart from concluding the evidence on behalf of the petitioner, learned trial court is further directed to conclude his argument on the same date itself in terms of the undertaking given by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner before the court. 7. However, this order shall not affect the case of other accused persons since the defence arguments have already been closed. 8. This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. 9. Let a copy, which has been produced on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the application under section 315 Cr.P.C., 1973 be kept on record. 10. Let a copy of the order be sent through Fax.