Khazan Singh Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - however, it is well known that for securing the ends of justice, the high court can interfere with an order which causes miscarriage of justice or where the order is palpably illegal or unjustified.ordervinod k. sharma, j.1. this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure has been moved to challenge the order dated june 4, 2007 passed by the additional chief judicial magistrate, karnal, which reads as under:today was the last opportunity granted to the prosecution to lead its evidence. at the same time, the present case was required to be decided by 24-7-2006, as ordered by the hon'ble high court in order dated 24-1-2006. this was not done. no request for extension of time was made before the hon'ble high court. in my considered view, further adjournment is not justified for recording the prosecution evidence and the same is closed by court order. to come up on 11-6-2007 for recording the statements of accused under section 313, cr. p.c.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution witnesses could not be examined due to the fault of the prosecution, as they were not produced in court for want of proper service and there was no fault on the part of the complainant in not producing them. the order passed by the learned additional chief judicial magistrate, karnal, on 19-4-2007 reads as under:one p.w. namely dsp tejbir is present and examined. the summons issued to remaining witnesses received back not properly served. a perusal of the case file reveals that this one of the case which is pending in this court wherein, the hon'ble high court has issued directions in order to expedite the trial of the case by giving priority as compared of the other cases pending in this court. in compliance of the directions issued by the hon'ble high court, a short date is given for summoning of all the remaining p.ws. the case file be now put up on 14-5-2007 for summoning all the remaining unexamined prosecution witnesses through special messenger and in order to ensure the service of all the p.ws. a letter of request be also written to ssp, karnal to depute a responsible police official including the investigating officer to serve and to produce the remaining prosecution witnesses on the date fixed.3. on 19-4-2007 the case was adjourned to 14-5-2007. on 14-5-2007 the court could not be held because of the transfer of the presiding officer and the case was adjourned to 4-6-2007.4. prior to the order dated 19-4-2007, the learned trial court was pleased to pass the following order on 11-4-2007:no p.ws. is present. however, by making a separate statement, the ld. p.p. for state has tendered documents ex. px and ex. py and for making the remaining evidence on behalf of the prosecution. an adjournment has been sought, which has been 'strongly opposed. this is one of the case which is pending in this court, wherein the hon'ble high court has issued directions in order to expedite the trial of the case by giving priority as compared of the other cases pending in this court. in compliance of the directions issued by the hon'ble high court, a short date is given to 19-4-2007 for summoning of all the p.ws. be summoned through special messenger and in order to ensure the service of all the p.ws. a letter be also written to ssp, karnal, to depute a responsible police official including the investigating officer to serve and to produce the remaining prosecution witnesses on the date fixed.5. the only reason which prompted the judicial officer to close the prosecution evidence by order on 4-6-2006 was a direction issued by this court to dispose of the complaint filed by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the prosecution witnesses to be examined in this case are material witnesses, it would, therefore, be in the interest of justice if the prosecution is granted one more opportunity to examine them.6. in support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of jagir singh sidhu v. harbeant singh 2003 (3) rcr (criminal) 631, in which this court was pleased to lay down as under:7. first of all the preliminary objection of the respondent with regard to the revision petition being barred against an interlocutory order may be considered. in this regard it may be noticed that the petitioner initially filed criminal revision petition no. 830 of 2001. this court vide order dated 25-5-2001, on the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner treated the said criminal revision petition as a petition under section 482 of the cr. p.c. this petition was accordingly numbered as criminal misc. no. 21347-m of 2001. therefore, the present is a criminal misc. petition under section 482 of the cr. p.c. this court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, cr. p.c. can interfere with an order which leads to miscarriage of justice. the hon'ble supreme court in the case of krishnan v. krishnaveni : 1997crilj1519 has held that there is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the high court under section 482 of the cr. p.c. over the courts of judicial magistrate subordinate to it to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any order passed. the high court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of self-imposed restrictions. however, it is well known that for securing the ends of justice, the high court can interfere with an order which causes miscarriage of justice or where the order is palpably illegal or unjustified. in this view of the matter, i am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that it is against an interlocutory order and is barred by the provisions of section 397(2) of the cr. p.c.7. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the witnesses to be examined are material witnesses, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned trial court is directed to grant one opportunity to the prosecution to examine all its witnesses on the date to be fixed by the trial court.

Judgment:
ORDER

Vinod K. Sharma, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved to challenge the order dated June 4, 2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, which reads as under:

Today was the last opportunity granted to the prosecution to lead its evidence. At the same time, the present case was required to be decided by 24-7-2006, as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court in order dated 24-1-2006. This was not done. No request for extension of time was made before the Hon'ble High Court. In my considered view, further adjournment is not justified for recording the prosecution evidence and the same is closed by Court order. To come up on 11-6-2007 for recording the statements of accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution witnesses could not be examined due to the fault of the prosecution, as they were not produced in Court for want of proper service and there was no fault on the part of the complainant in not producing them. The order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, on 19-4-2007 reads as under:

One P.W. namely DSP Tejbir is present and examined. The summons issued to remaining witnesses received back not properly served. A perusal of the case file reveals that this one of the case which is pending in this Court wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has issued directions in order to expedite the trial of the case by giving priority as compared of the other cases pending in this Court. In compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court, a short date is given for summoning of all the remaining P.Ws. The case file be now put up on 14-5-2007 for summoning all the remaining unexamined prosecution witnesses through Special messenger and in order to ensure the service of all the P.Ws. a letter of request be also written to SSP, Karnal to depute a responsible police official including the investigating officer to serve and to produce the remaining prosecution witnesses on the date fixed.

3. On 19-4-2007 the case was adjourned to 14-5-2007. On 14-5-2007 the Court could not be held because of the transfer of the Presiding Officer and the case was adjourned to 4-6-2007.

4. Prior to the order dated 19-4-2007, the learned trial Court was pleased to pass the following order on 11-4-2007:

No P.Ws. Is present. However, by making a separate statement, the Ld. P.P. for State has tendered documents Ex. PX and Ex. PY and for making the remaining evidence on behalf of the prosecution. An adjournment has been sought, which has been 'strongly opposed. This is one of the case which is pending in this Court, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has issued directions in order to expedite the trial of the case by giving priority as compared of the other cases pending in this Court. In compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court, a short date is given to 19-4-2007 for summoning of all the P.Ws. Be summoned through special messenger and in order to ensure the service of all the P.Ws. a letter be also written to SSP, Karnal, to depute a responsible police official including the investigating officer to serve and to produce the remaining prosecution witnesses on the date fixed.

5. The only reason which prompted the Judicial Officer to close the prosecution evidence by order on 4-6-2006 was a direction issued by this Court to dispose of the complaint filed by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the prosecution witnesses to be examined in this case are material witnesses, it would, therefore, be in the interest of justice if the prosecution is granted one more opportunity to examine them.

6. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagir Singh Sidhu v. Harbeant Singh 2003 (3) RCR (Criminal) 631, in which this Court was pleased to lay down as under:

7. First of all the preliminary objection of the respondent with regard to the revision petition being barred against an interlocutory order may be considered. In this regard it may be noticed that the petitioner initially filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 830 of 2001. This Court vide order dated 25-5-2001, on the oral request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner treated the said Criminal Revision Petition as a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. This petition was accordingly numbered as Criminal Misc. No. 21347-M of 2001. Therefore, the present is a Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. This Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can interfere with an order which leads to miscarriage of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni : 1997CriLJ1519 has held that there is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. over the Courts of Judicial Magistrate subordinate to it to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any order passed. The High Court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of self-imposed restrictions. However, it is well known that for securing the ends of justice, the High Court can interfere with an order which causes miscarriage of justice or where the order is palpably illegal or unjustified. In this view of the matter, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that it is against an interlocutory order and is barred by the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Cr. P.C.

7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the witnesses to be examined are material witnesses, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the prosecution to examine all its witnesses on the date to be fixed by the trial Court.