Raghbir Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

Raghbir Singh and another were facing trial in case FIR No. 215 of 1985, P.S. Verowal, under Section 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar vested with the powers to try cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

They were acquitted after trial by Sh. I.C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 25.9.1986 for want of proper sanction. He did not advert to the merits of the case and the factual position thereof. It was mentioned that the appropriate authorities would be at liberty to launch fresh prosecution against them after procuring proper sanction, if they so chose.

Raghbir Singh and another became again arraigned before the Court. On 24.9.93 PW was examined and the prosecution evidence was closed. Case was posted to 30.9.93 for the statements of the accused.

On 30.9.1993, the statements of the accused were recorded and the case was posted for defence evidence to 7.10.93. On 7.10.93, 19.10.93, 26.10.93, 29.10.93, 4.11.93, 9.11.93, 25.11.93, 9.12.93, 20.12.93, 7.1.94, 14.1.94, 31.1.94, 14.2.94, 18.3.94, 5.4.94, 23.4.94, 29.4.94, 11.5.94, 30.5.94, 6.7.94, 29.7.94 and 1.9.94 no defence evidence was present. On 1.9.94, the case was posted to 16.9.94 for defence evidence. On 16.9.94, the public prosecutor for the State made an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a view to permit him to produce some evidence. On 6.10.94, Special Judge, Amritsar allowed the prayer of the Public Prosecutor for the State and permitted him to produce evidence. It is this order dated 6.10.94 passed by the Special Judge, Amritsar, the quashing of which Raghbir Singh and another are seeking through the present criminal writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They have also desired the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar in case FIR No. 215 of 1985, P.S. Verowal (ibid).

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they were facing trial since September 1986. They were acquitted by the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 25.9.86 for want of proper sanction. After procuring fresh sanction, they were challaned and put up on trial. They are facing trial again since 1987. Prosecution closed evidence on 24.9.93. Till 24.9.93 the vagaries of criminal trial were hanging on the shoulders of the accused since September 1986. They were, thus, before the criminal court for 7 years. Criminal trial should not take so long. Vagaries of trial sap the very vitality not only of the undertrial, but of the entire family. They became physically and mentally bankrupt.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sh. I.C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Amritsar acquitted the accused vide order dated 25.9.86 for want of proper sanction. He observed that they could be put up at trial after procuring proper sanction. He forgot that it was for the prosecution to have put them up on trial after proper sanction. If there was no proper sanction, they ought to have been acquitted forthwith. Object of criminal trial is to vindicate the criminal law and not to harass the accused over again. The accused spurned the order of Sh. I.C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Amritsar and gracefully agreed to be put up on trial. They were put up on trial in the year 1987. On 24.9.93, the prosecution closed their evidence, on 30.9.93, the statements of the accused were recorded. Case was posted to innumerable times for the defence evidence. They were before the Court for defence evidence for almost 25 times. When they had been before the Court for 25 times in connection with the producing of defence evidence that the learned Public Prosecutor for the State moved an application praying that the prosecution be permitted to produce Vidya Bhushan Vohra, Chief Accounts Officer and ASI Jarnail Singh.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ever since September 1986, the accused had been before the criminal court almost 5060 times. It would be mockery of justice if criminal trials keep hanging for 8 long years. Learned Special Judge ought to have decided the case forthwith without permitting prosecution to examine Sh. Vidya Bhushan Vohra and ASI Jarnail Singh. It would be adding fuel to the fire if the trial is prolonged further. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that permitting the prosecution to produce Sh. Vidya Bhushan Vohra and ASI Jarnail Singh at the fag end when the accused have entered their defence, would be highly prejudicial to the accused. Permitting the prosecution to produce this evidence would be denial of fair trial to the accused.

It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power given to the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to the disadvantage of the accused particularly when his defence has been closed. He has relied upon Santokh Singh v. State of Haryana, 1975 CLR 119 in support of this submission.

Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows :

"Power to summon material witness, or examine person present Any Court may, at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and reexamine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

The words "essential to the just decision of the case" used in this Section apply equally to the prosecution as well as to the accused. It is the duty of the Court to see that there is fair trial to the accused as also to the prosecution and that there should be justice in the case. It is a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Case is still in the stage of trial. Court is to assure justice to the accused as well as to the State in criminal cases. Neither the State nor the accused is allowed to pursue a hide and seek policy.

Section 311 Cr.P.C. was enacted by the Legislature with a view to enable the prosecution and the accused to examine any evidence if they wish to even though the trial is over if that evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. Court of law has to hold the scales of justice even. Court of law is not allowed to tilt the scales of justice either in favour of the accused or in favour of the prosecution.

In my opinion, no case for interference is made out with the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, Amritsar permitting the prosecution to produce additional evidence. So, this petition is declined.

It is, however, made clear to the State that the State shall not take more than two adjournments for the production of additional evidence in the court of Special Judge, Amritsar after the receipt of this order.