Allahabad High Court
Jitendra And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 14 November, 2014
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12060 0f 2011
Jitendra & another Vs. State of U.P. & another
Hon.Om Praksh-VII, J.
This writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by the A.C.J.M., Baghpat in case No.1689 of 2009, State Vs. Surendra & Others, under section 406 IPC, P.S. Ramala, District Baghpat and also the order dated 3.6.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Baghpat in Criminal Revision No. Nil of 2011.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
The Criminal Case No.1689 of 2009, as mentioned above, was pending before the A.C.J.M., Baghpat in which, at the stage of argument, an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved from the prosecution side to file certain documents. The trial court invited objection and after hearing both the parties vide order dated 27.5.2011 allowed the said application with a cost of Rs.200/- to be paid to the petitioners. It was also observed that the documents sought to be filed are relevant documents for the just decision of the trial.
Against the said order, a criminal revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Baghpat which was dismissed vide order dated 3.6.2011 at the stage of admission observing that order passed on the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against the said order.
Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as the learned AGA and also gone through the entire record.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the trial after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties the matter was postponed for judgement but. judgement was not delivered by the trial court and matter was postponed again and again and at that stage an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant to file certain documents.
Under the provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. the documentary evidence can not be admitted. Only witnesses, as has been provided under section 311 Cr.P.C. itself, can be summoned. The trial court has committed illegality in exercising the jurisdiction vested under section 311 Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that application under section 311 Cr.P.C. can not be allowed to fill-up lacuna in the evidence at belated stage. Sufficient opportunity to lead the evidence had been availed by the prosecution but the said document had not been filed earlier. Thus prayer has been made to allow the writ petition. Reliance has been placed of the law laid down in the matter of Prabir Kumar Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand 2009 (Supl.) ACC 729 of Jharkhand High Court.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that during the oral statements the witnesses had stated before the Court that if court requires the said documents the same can be filed. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, no question to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of writ court arises. The said document can be entertained by the trial court at any stage of trial. Postponing the matter for judgement or argument is immaterial.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the entire record.
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is as follows:-
"Any court may, at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examined any person already examined; and the court shall summon and examined or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. "
Thus, on plain reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C., quoted above, it is clear that vested power under this provision can be exercised at any stage of inquiry, trial or proceeding. There is no bar that this provision can not be exercised at the stage of argument. Limitation is that a party trying to fill up in lacuna taking recourse of this provision the same should not be exercised because the legislature has given this discretion to exercise judiciously. Thus object of the provision, as a whole, is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. The Court examines evidence under this section neither to help the prosecution nor to help the accused. Therefore the legislature has put restriction for the just decision of the case.
As far as accepting the documentary evidence taking the recourse of provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Prabir Kumar Rai (Supra) observed that section 311 Cr.P.C. does not connote or denote production and examination of any document in express words.
Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Raju @ Rajendra Prasad Versus State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 Criminal Law Journal 2367 placing reliance on the law laid down in the matter of Ram Chander Vs. State of Haryana, 1981 Criminal Law Journal Page 609 (Supreme Court) has held as follows :-
"Under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and S. 165 Evidence Act, the trial Court has ample power and discretion to interfere and control conduction of trial properly, effectively and in matter as described by law. While conducting the trial, Court is not required to sit as a silent spectator or umpire but to take active part well within the boundaries of law. In the present case, to many important documents were not got proved thought filed alongwith charge-sheet, so many important documents were not filed which could be important and relevant for the just decision of a trial, and the same could be got to be proved and directed tobe produced by trial Court under S. 165 of Evidence Act and 311 of Cr.P.C."
In the present matter, although prosecution has been permitted at the stage of argument to file documentary evidence, but the Court below, while passing the order, has passed a reasoned order as is required under Section 311 Cr.P.C. If the documents admitted in evidence are relevant for just decision of the case, then in view of the above pronouncement made in the matters of Raju @ Rajendra Prasad and Ram Chander (Supra), this Court is of the view that no ground is made out to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction to set-aside the impugned order.
Thus, in view of the above, I am of the view that there is no illegality, irregularity, impropriety or miscarriage of justice in the impugned orders. The writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order date :- 14.11.2014
IA/ss
