Delhi High Court
Directorate Of Revenue ... vs Prakash Chand & Ors. on 10 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 26th MAY, 2016
DECIDED ON : 10th AUGUST, 2016
+ CRL.M.C.2159/2010 & CRL.M.A.No.8504/2010
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Pooja Bhaskar, Proxy counsel for
Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Advocate.
versus
PRAKASH CHAND & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Naveen Malhotra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioner "Directorate of Revenue Intelligence" (In short 'DRI') to
challenge the correctness and legality of an order dated 08.04.2010 of
learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate whereby application moved
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine / recall certain witnesses was
dismissed. The petition is contested by the respondents.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file.
3. A complaint case was filed against the respondents on
21.01.1987, when the respondents were in judicial custody, for commission
of offence punishable under Section 135 Customs Act. One of the
respondents Naresh Kumar Sharma has since expired. On 04.02.1987, the
case was listed for recording pre-charge evidence for 04.03.1987. Numerous
dates have been taken by the complainant to complete its pre-charge
evidence since then. It, however, utterly failed to do so. Finally, vide order
dated 17.04.2001, the complainant was directed to produce the entire
evidence on the next date i.e. 14.08.2001; it had no effect and again the
complainant sought number of adjournments to record the statements of
prosecution witnesses. On 12.11.2006, the Trial Court afforded last and
final opportunity to the prosecution to complete its evidence. When the
complaint did not comply the said order, vide order dated 19.04.2007,
further evidence of the prosecution was ordered to be closed. When the
matter was listed for arguments on charge, an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. was moved on 22.08.2007 which resulted in its dismissal by an
order dated 08.04.2010.
4. Apparently, the petitioner was not at all diligent to record its
pre-charge evidence despite grant of uncountable adjournments. Finding no
alternative, the court has constrained to close the prosecution evidence vide
order dated 19.04.2007. Soon thereafter, the application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. was filed to recall the order and to examine the remaining
prosecution witnesses. For detailed reasons given in the impugned order,
the Trial Court declined to accede to the petitioner's prayer.
5. No plausible and convincing reasons have been offered by the
petitioner for dragging the pre-charge evidence for about more than two
decades. There was complete slackness on the part of the prosecution to
pursue its complaint case. On several dates, no prosecution witness was
available; on many other dates, the prosecution was unable to produce the
case property required for examination of the witnesses present in the Court.
No satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why the case property was
not available on those dates. Despite specific directions to complete its
entire evidence vide order dated 17.04.2001, no seriousness was shown to
complete it. Instead of examining any witness, on 30.07.1987, an
application was filed under Sections 219/222/223 Cr.P.C. for joint trial
which resulted in its rejection on 03.10.1987. On 26.10.1987, no PW was
present. The complainant rather filed certain documents. On 05.03.2003,
the prosecution got to know that material document i.e. 'Panchnama' was
not on record. Adjournment was again sought on 20.05.2003 as the original
documents could not be filed. On 10.06.2003, the documents were filed and
the case was listed for recording pre-charge evidence for 11.09.2003. On
that date, witness could not be examined completely for want of case
property. On 04.08.2004, two PWs were present but adjournment was
sought as the complainant wanted to file certain 'documents'. Needless to
say, no sincere efforts were made to record the statements of the prosecution
witnesses. On several dates unwarranted adjournments in routine manner
were sought by the complainant and were granted without any valid cause.
Adjournments must not be allowed on the mere asking for it or to suit the
convenience of the complainant.
6. True, some adjournments were attributable to the respondents
but the complainant cannot take benefit of it as it failed to examine all the
witnesses despite availing numerous adjournments. After all how many
effective dates are required to record the statements of six or seven
prosecution witnesses in pre-charge evidence? In 2007, the complainant
was still to examine four material witnesses in its pre-charge evidence. It is
unclear as to when the trial would come to an end in such a scenario. The
prosecution has not given any justification for not examining the witnesses;
for not producing the case property and documents on the relevant dates.
None was held responsible as to why the vital document i.e. panchnama was
not placed on record at the time of filing the complaint or soon thereafter.
The petitioner cannot be granted indefinite adjournments as per its
convenience. Enough is enough; somewhere, a final stop is to be put.
Shifting the blame upon the respondents or the Court would serve no
purpose. The respondents cannot be made to suffer endlessly. Reasonably
expeditious trial is a fundamental right of the accused.
7. The impugned order based upon fair appreciation of the facts
and circumstances deserves no intervention.
8. The petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. Pending
application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back
forthwith with the copy of the order.
9. Efforts will be made by the Trial Court to expedite the trial as
the case pertains to the year 1987.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 10, 2016 / tr
