Laxmi Rao vs Union of India (UOI)

M.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.—Though this matter is listed for admission by the consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

This criminal revision petition by the accused filed u/s 397 read with Section 401, Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 19-1-2004 passed in Spl. C.C. No. 218 of 1996, on the file of the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the application filed by the accused 2, challenging the legality and propriety of the order impugned.

2-A. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri P.S. Mahadevan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner and Sri Ashok Harnahalli, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is illegal and improper. The learned Special Judge had erred in not noticing that 24 witnesses have been examined by the person, who is hot competent to examine and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the same has prejudiced the accused, The learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

H.N. Rishbud and Anr. v. State of Delhi AIR 1965 SC 196 : 1955 CriLJ 626 (SC);

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mubarak Ali, ;

Munna Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,

Placing reliance on the ratio laid down in the said decisions, he prayed for allowing the revision petition.

On the contrary, the learned Counsel for respondent, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is legal and proper. The accused has not come up with the application at the earliest point of time and now the trial of the case is fixed and the trial is going on before the Trial Court and at this stage the accused has come up with this petition, which is totally devoid of merits. The learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Shri Ram Singh, ;

A.C. Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration, ;

Muni Lal Vs. Delhi Administration,

Placing reliance on the ratio laid down in the said decisions, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

The Court has carefully perused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised.

From the material on record, it is seen that the CBI had submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 120-B read with Section 420 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the year 1986. After hearing both sides, charge came to be framed against the accused for the said offences and the trial of the case has been fixed to today. Earlier to that, an application had been filed by accused 2 before the Trial Court raising the said contentions and had sought for re- investigation being conducted in respect of those witnesses, who have not been examined by the competent officer. The learned Sessions Judge, after contest had dismissed the said application. This order came to be passed on 19-1-2004. The accused, feeling aggrieved, has come up before this Court with the instant petition.

From the material on record, it is seen that after investigation charge-sheet had been submitted in the year 1996 and the 8 years have elapsed from that date and after hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge had framed charges and fixed the case for trial. At this stage of the trial the accused has come up with the instant revision petition.

It is to be noted that, if the accused had approached the Court at the earliest point of time things could have been viewed from a different angle. But that is not the situation. The trial of the case is fixed to today and that now the accused has approached this Court praying for re-examination of 24 witnesses, who had already been examined by the Investigating Agency. The main grouse of accused 2 is that 24 witnesses have not been examined by the officer competent to examine and this has prejudiced him. It is to be borne in mind that charge-sheet has been submitted about 8 years ago and now, the trial of the case is in progress. At this stage, the instant petition has been filed.

At this stage, it is necessary to mention in the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shri Ram Singh, wherein the Apex Court had held that "Procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The overall public interest and the social object is required to be kept in mind while interpreting various provisions of the Act and decide cases under it".

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the delay on the part of the accused in approaching this Court and in particular, the ratio laid down in the said decision, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned cannot be labelled as illegal and improper and the same does not call for any interference.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands dismissed. The order impugned is maintained.