S.C. Gupta vs N.C.T. Of Delhi (State)
2005 Latest Caselaw 734 Del

JUDGMENT

H.R. Malhotra, J.

1. By filing this petition, the petitioner seeks revision of the impugned order dated 5th September 2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the application of the petitioner made under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping the proceedings against him on the ground inter alia that the three witnesses produced by the prosecution including the complainant have not supported the prosecution case and therefore, examination of remaining witnesses shall be an exercise on futility particularly when the FIR is of the year 1991. It is further stated that the complainant PW-2 Surjeet Lal did not support the case of the prosecution at all and he testified contrary to what was stated by him before the police in his complain Ex.PW-2/A. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that PW-2 Surjeet Lal admitted that there was arbitration clause and in terms thereof arbitration proceedings have taken place and the Arbitrator had made award in favor of the petitioner.

2. On the other hand, learned prosecutor while meeting such arguments urged that PW-2 Surjeet Lal supported the prosecution case on material points and even otherwise, according to him it was the prerogative of the trial court to appreciate such evidence and that it was pre-mature to say that the petitioner should be discharged at this initial stage particularly, when many more witnesses remain to be examined and there is likelihood of completing the chain of circumstances pointing out the guilt towards the petitioner.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and that of the State. I have also looked into the trial court record. I am told that the trial judge is in the midst of recording the evidence, therefore, judging the case on merits at this juncture may not be in the interest of any of the parties as any observation made in that regard at this juncture might lead to certain impression either beneficial to the prosecution or to the petitioner, therefore, court does not want such situation to arises it shall be to the determent of either of the parties.

4. Only three witnesses have been examined so far and remaining are yet to be examined and it was therefore, improper to anticipate their testimony giving benefit to the petitioner. Evidence as a whole is to be appreciated by the trial judge and not in piecemeal, therefore, it shall be unethical to say at this juncture that the petitioner be discharged. The trial judge shall have appraised of the evidence in entirety and of course, shall render its decision in accordance with law. The revision petition filed by the petitioner appears to be pre-mature in nature, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed as such resulting in maintaining the impugned order.