TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court to close the evidence if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant. The decision in P. Ramachandra Rao (supra) and Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak AIR 1992 SC 1701 preserve the right of an accused for a speedy trial. Thus if despite repeated opportunities witnesses are not brought by the prosecution or defense and the Trial Court closes its evidence, it commits no illegality. During the course of arguments this Court raised a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he was in a position to produce all its witnesses expeditiously on one or two dates, when the learned counsel for petitioner was clueless as it was not even known as to how many witnesses are now available for examination. Considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 28th August, 2002 and 8th January, 2003 when no witness of the prosecution was present. On 4th June, 2003 one witness D.K. Sharma was present however learned Spl.P.P stated that the said witness had been wrongly summoned as his evidence was already recorded, thus the witness was discharged. After partly recording statement of PW-2 on 30th October, 2003, no witness was present on 9th March, 2004. On 10th August, 2004 and 27th January, 2005 PW-3 was examined. On 27th July, 2005 PW-2 was present however the original documents were not produced by the department. On 10th January, 2006 the learned Trial Court held that the proceedings qua accused No.5 abated as he had passed away and listed the matter for remaining prosecution evidence on 18t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s withdrawn. Again on 4th September, 2008 none was present on behalf of the petitioner nor was any witness present. Thus, the evidence of the petitioner was closed. 5. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed by the petitioner seeking recalling of the witnesses. The same was dismissed by the impugned order. As noted above, the orders passed by the learned Trial Court clearly reflect that there has been continuous non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner and despite opportunities no efforts were made to bring the witnesses. Despite having issued show cause notice to the Joint Commissioner, Excise, no serious effort was made to examine the witnesses. Though the complainant/petitioner pressed an application for withdrawal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriate cases, and putting the parties on terms while granting an adjournment or postponing of proceedings. This power to impose costs is rarely exercised by the Courts, Section 258, in Chapter XX of Code of Criminal Procedure on Trial of Summons-cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts. In appropriate cases, inhere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the Court could not have prescribed periods of limitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case or a criminal proceedings cannot continue and must mandatorily be closed followed by an order acquitting or discharging the accused. In conclusion we hold: (1).... (2).... (3).... 4).... (5) The Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258, of Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 226 and 227 of Constitutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
