Banshi Lal vs Smt. Chau Bai

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.—This revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dtd.2.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun in Criminal Case No.338/2001 by which he allowed the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and ordered to produce additional evidence when the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. were fixed for final arguments, be quashed and set aside.

It may be stated here that the respondent filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for maintenance before the learned ACJM, Begun and reply to that application was filed by the petitioner and evidence of both the parties was recorded and the case was adjourned for final hearing on 25.3.2003 and thereafter the case was adjourned for final hearing on 16.4.2003. Thereafter the respondent filed an application on 14.5.2003 for producing additional evidence and that application was allowed by the order dtd.2.6.2003 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate inter alia holding:

(i) That the additional evidence which was to be produced by the respondent should be allowed in the interest of justice.

Aggrieved from the order dtd.2.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

In this revision petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

(i) That the application was misconceived one as the same was filed at the time when the matter was listed for final arguments.

(ii) That no reasons have been assigned by the learned Magistrate for allowing that application.

(iii) That the Additional evidence cannot be taken on record to fill up the lacuna of the case.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order dtd.2.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and submitted that the same does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and hence does not call for any interference by this Court.

Heard.

The power conferred u/s 311 Cr.P.C. should be invoked by the Court only in the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection.

The jurisdiction of the Court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, fair-play, and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the present case, a bare perusal of the Order dtd.2.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that the learned Magistrate has not even mentioned as to which witness was to be summoned and apart from this, the valid reasons for allowing the applications are also missing in the impugned order dtd.2.6.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Not only this, the case was adjourned for final arguments twice-thrice and thereafter the application was moved by the respondent and from this point of view also, the application cannot be said to be bonafide one.

The High Court''s power u/s 397 Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when there exists manifest illegality in the judgment or order or there is grave miscarriage of justice.

In the present the order dtd.2.6.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate suffers from manifest illegality and there is grave miscarriage of justice and hence the order dtd.2.6.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is liable to be quashed and set aside and this revision petition deserves to be allowed.

For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dtd.2.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun is quashed and set aside.