AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bashir Ahmad Kirmani, J.—While entering into his defence after examination u/s 342 CrPC, the petitioner/accused herein had his listed
witnesses, nine in number, examined whereafter he sought summoning more of them through two different applications one for having the General
Manager and another an Officer of BSNL to depose regarding availability of back-up material relating to deleted data pertaining to his and
complainant's mobile phones summoned; and another for summoning a particular Police Officer along with record of a previous inquiry stated to
have been conducted against him departmentally, which did not find favour with Learned trial Judge who, while observing that both the petitions
had been instituted to delay the trial, dismissed the same vide his order dated 13-02-2008 impugned herein.
Grounds pleaded are that by disallowing petitioner's request for summoning of witnesses/materials, as aforesaid, Learned trial Judge has virtually
acted to petitioner's prejudice by disabling him to complete his defence in a case loaded with serious repercussions/implications again him. During
course of submissions, his Counsel while reiterating the contents of this petition has also contended that since the case had been instituted less than
a year before and was almost at the culminating stage, there was no question of any delay that could be attracted particularly because his statement
u/s 342 Cr.P.C. had only been recorded on 27th of November, 2007. In rebuttal, Learned State Counsel has, however, contended that harassed
by speed of trial against his expectations of delay, the petitioner has chosen to attempt at prolonging the trial by instituting groundless petitions like
the ones dismissed by Learned trial Judge, which were both devoid of all force.
I have heard Learned Counsel and considered the matter. Before proceeding ahead, it would be appropriate to observe that whether speed or
delay, in particular judicial proceedings, both should be guided and determined by requirements of substantial justice and not left to be debated for
their own sake. Instantly, even while the petitioner/accused appears to have exhausted his list of witnesses, the door to summon any one further
would not be automatically closed on him in the name of speed of the trial particularly while the material sought to be brought on record was stated
to have some bearing on merits of the matter. Trial Courts are meant to get the abstract truth of the matter and act towards that rather than noticing
defects in conduct of a particular case by a particular party and punishing him for the same. In given circumstances of the case, it would perhaps
not have been too much, had the Learned trial Judge made a time bound attempt to ascertain relevance of the proposed testimony projected by
petitioner/accused, which could perhaps also have saved this couple of months consumed during proceedings herein.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by providing that:
(a) the Learned trial Judge would summon the record of departmental proceedings from concerned quarters, as sought by the petitioner/accused
and if on perusal thereof he finds it relevant for arriving at correct conclusions at trial, he may take further requisite steps including those u/s 540
Cr.P.C. subject to his satisfaction regarding relevance of the material and not petitioner's insistence;
(b) The petitioner herein would furnish a certificate from General Manager, BSNL regarding existence of back-up material, pertaining to the data
deleted from his and complainant's Cell Phones within one month to Learned trial Judge for showing that the same is existent, and in that case
Learned trial Judge would consider summoning the same for such further proceedings as he may deem proper;
(c) All this be completed with reasonable speed preferably within three months from now, if practicable.
Disposed of. Parties to appear in the Court below on the date appointed there.