Bandhana Khakha & Another vs State Of Odisha (Vig.)
2023 Latest Caselaw 1770 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   CRLMC No.1469 of 2018


            Bandhana Khakha & Another                  ....         Petitioners
                                                 Mr. B.S. Daspanda, Advocate
                                          -versus-

            State of Odisha (Vig.)                      ....     Opposite Party
                                             Mr. P. K. Pani, Standing Counsel

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE

                                          ORDER

Order No. 24.02.2023

11. 1. The challenge in the present petition by the accused is to an order dated 5th April, 2018 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. No.54 of 1999, whereby invoking the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the trial Court decided to recall for further examination of PW 2 and also take on Board certain documents.

2. The grievance of the present Petitioner is that the case having been registered way back as P.S. Case No.57 of 1995 on 17th December, 1995 and with the case having actually been fixed for judgment on 5th April 2018, there was no occasion for the trial Court at the last minute to invoke the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department does not dispute the fact that charge sheet was already submitted in the case way back on 13th September, 1997 and the question of admitting fresh documents for the purpose of trial more than twenty years thereafter was perhaps extraordinary.

4. The Court notes that the offences of which the Petitioner is being tried is under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as Sections 465, 468 and 477-A read with 34 I.P.C. Charge sheet was filed way back on 13th September, 1997 itself. Accompanying the charge sheet should have been all the documents that the prosecution is relying on. After conclusion of the witness action in the trial and when the case was listed for judgment, the trial Court decided to permit the prosecution to place on record more documents. There is every reason to believe, as contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, that this was an attempt by the prosecution to fill up the lacuna in the trial of the case.

5. In the considered view of the Court, the above circumstances are tell-tale. If for eighteen years the prosecution decided to keep back documents and then produce them at the last minute only to somehow postpone the conclusion of the trial, such an attempt should not have been encouraged by the trial Court. In other words, giving the circumstances where the case is already more than twenty years old, the trial Court ought not to have lightly entertained the plea of recalling one of the prosecution witnesses (P.W.2) and taken on Board new documents not forming part of the charge sheet.

6. Consequently, the Court sets aside the impugned order dated 15th April 2018. It is directed that T.R. No.54 of 1999 will revive before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur and will be listed there on 17th April, 2023. T.R. No.54 of 1999 will resume from the stage in which it was before the Vigilance Judge who will proceed after hearing arguments of both sides and pronounce the final judgment. Considering that this is an old case, the trial Court should conclude the hearings and deliver judgment within a period of three months from that date.

7. The petition is disposed of the above terms. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

8. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Subordinate Court forthwith.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice Sumitra