Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 221 (JHR)

Raamjee Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand Through ACB

2020-02-04

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. 3. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- ''For quashing of the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the court of District Judge-II cum Spl. Judge, ACB, Dhanbad in Spl. Case No. 14/2008 (MCA No. 166/2019) whereby the prayer made by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was allowed at a stage when the case was twice fixed for judgment. The case is pending in the Court of District Judge-II cum Spl. Judge, ACB, Dhanbad.'' 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that repeatedly the learned court below has given opportunity to the prosecution to fill up the lacuna in the evidence adduced by the prosecution in as much as once a petition under Section 294 Cr. P.C. was allowed for the purposes of exhibiting the FSL report which was lying in the record and subsequently a petition under Section 311 was also allowed to examine one of the prosecution witnesses for formal proof of the documents. The learned counsel submits that when the earlier petition was allowed the matter was already reserved for judgment and subsequently when again the matter was reserved, another petition under Section 311 was allowed which is now the impugned order before this court. Learned counsel submits that the manner in which the case has been conducted before the learned court below indicates that the learned court below has granted repeated opportunity to the prosecution to fill up the lacuna by exhibiting certain documents which were not exhibited at the appropriate stage. However, learned counsel does not dispute the fact that as of now, pursuant to the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 by which a petition under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was allowed, the concerned witness has already been examined by the learned court below and his evidence has been taken on record. 5. Upon this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that present case has become infructuous in as much as the person has already been examined pursuant to the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 and the evidence recorded has already become a part of the record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 a petition under Section 311 Cr. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 a petition under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was allowed and the prosecution was directed to produce the witnesses on the next date for examination to prove the document and the next date was fixed on 10.01.2020. It is not in dispute that the concerned witnesses has already been examined by the learned court below. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that once the evidence has already been recorded pursuant to the order passed under Section 311 Cr. P.C. the impugned order allowing the petition under Section 311 Cr. P.C. cannot be set aside and this case has become infructuous. It appears from the record that this case was filed on 28.11.2019, defects were removed on 06.12.2019. The case was mentioned on 03.02.20 and was directed to be listed on 04.02.2020 (today) and by this time the impugned order had taken its effect. 7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 8. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10.Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.