TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge was framed on 31.03.2007 and since then, despite several opportunities being given to the petitioner, no witness was produced for the purpose of cross examination. Even on the date of passing of the order, no witness for the evidence was present, and accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 17.02.2011. The second order was passed on 09.12.2011 by virtue of which the learned ACMM had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of as many as ten witnesses, details of which were given in the application itself. 2. I have heard Mr. Satish Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by him that the order regarding closure of evidence passed on 25.01.2011 was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny is very essential for arriving at a just decision of the case. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the record. 4. I had requisitioned the learned Trial Court record and have gone through the same. 5. The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent for violation of Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 way back in 1993. The officials of the DRI, on filing of the complaint got the respondents summoned as accused persons. Accordingly, Section 200 Cr.P.C. Proviso came into action wherein when a complaint is filed by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, the examination of the pre summoning evidence is dispensed with and the summons are issued to the respondents/accused. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duce evidence or could not examine the witnesses on account of non-production of the case property, but nevertheless that cannot be a ground for the prosecution to be slack and not being able to conclude its evidence despite the expiry of nearly 14 years. The judgment in case titled Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. -vs- Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 has laid down that right to speedy trial is enshrined under Article 21 and certainly when a person is put to trial for more than two decades it cannot be said to be a speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21. 7. In the backdrop of above circumstances, in the instant case the charges were framed on 31.03.2007 and even if, any delay, whether it was on the part of the prosecution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary, the petitioner filed a fresh application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. giving therein the list of ten witnesses whose testimony was stated to be relevant for the just decision of the case. 8. As I have pointed out hereinabove, after framing of the charge, it is not open to the petitioner to examine any witness afresh. For the purpose of cross-examination of the accused, the petitioner can only examine the witnesses already examined at the stage of pre charge as the quantum of proof for framing the charge is much higher and it must result in the conviction of the accused, if left unrebutted as mentioned in section 244 read with Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. While as the case of the petitioner was that the testimony of these ten witnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
