The Supreme Court dismissed a criminal revision appealing against an order permitting the prosecution to examine a cooperative department officer as an additional witness, ruling that his evidence is essential for a just decision under Cr.P.C. Section 311.
Revision case dismissed; proceedings closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2172 of 2017
ORDER :
The revision case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/A-2, is directed against the order, dated 06-06-2017 in Crl.M.P.No.971 of 2017 in C.C.No.300 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthi.
The petitioner/accused is facing trial in the aforesaid C.C.No.300 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 117, 403, 408, 409, 415, 463 and 477-A read with 34 of IPC.
During the course of trial the prosecution/complainant filed the aforestated M.P., under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., requesting for permission to examine one Vuta Trimurthulu, who worked as Deputy Registrar in the office of District Co-operative Office, Kakinada, as additional witness on the ground that the said officer enquired into the mis-appropriation of amounts deposited by the depositors in various accounts of Varahi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society and that the said officer verified the
2
account books and records and that his report revealed the complicity of various persons and that in view of the statutory enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and the report submitted by him under the provisions of the said Act, it is necessary to examine him as a witness in Calendar Case to substantiate the prosecution case.
The petitioner/A-2 having filed a counter resisted the said application. In the counter it is stated that the proposed witness was not examined by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and that his statement, if any, recorded is not filed with the charge sheet and that such a witness, therefore, cannot be permitted to be examined as an additional witness, and that such a course of examining a witness not listed and not previously examined causes prejudice to the defence of the accused and that the prosecution is intending to examine the said witness to get over the laches, fill up the lacunae and to cover-up the defects in the prosecution case and that therefore, it is impermissible to examine the proposed witness as additional witness. However, having regard to the facts and the legal position, the trial Court allowed the petition by inter alia observing that the examination of the said official witness is essential for arriving at a just decision in the case. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner/A-2 is before this Court.
3
Admittedly, the proposed witness was not examined during the course of investigation and his previous statement is not filed into Court. The present attempt to examine the said witness, who is not earlier cited as a witness, is only intended to cover-up the defects in the prosecution case and fill up the lacunae in the evidence and that if such request of the prosecution is granted, the same causes great prejudice to the petitioner/A-2.
4
Kakinada. One of the allegations against the accused in the crime is that they have misappropriated the amounts of the depositors in various accounts of Varahi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. The case of the prosecution is that the proposed witness, who is a responsible officer, enquired into the matter as per law and procedure and that during the course of such enquiry he verified the account books & records and that he found the complicity of the accused in the matter of mis-appropriation of amounts of the depositors and that he submitted a report after such detailed enquiry. Therefore, the prosecution now intends to examine the said official witness as one of the additional witnesses in the present case. Though the Investigating Officer has not examined this witness during the course of investigation, that by itself is not a ground to deny an opportunity to the prosecution to examine the said witness as Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., clearly empowers a Court to examine any witness, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Thus, the power vested under the said provision is made available to any Court at any stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under the Code for the purpose of summoning any person as a witness or for examining any person in attendance, even though not summoned as witness or to recall or re-examine any person already examined. Be that as it may, therefore, the paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose the essentiality of a person to be examined has to be ascertained. It is
5
needless to state that exercise of such power should be made judiciously and also with extreme care and caution. The Court has to keep in mind not only the aspect of giving a fair opportunity to the complainant but also the need for ensuring that the accused of the crime is not unduly harassed on account of the delay in disposal of the case.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
_____________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J
July 28, 2017 Pn
6
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2172 of 2017
July 28, 2017
Pn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the examination of the District Cooperative Office official as an additional witness despite the Investigating Officer not having examined him during the inve
Whether the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to summon essential witnesses overrides the objection raised regarding prejudice to the defence due to delay.
Whether the appeal against the trial court's order allowing the additional witness deserves success in the revision.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner/A-2
State of Andhra Pradesh
M. SEETHARAMA MURTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
