BRIJESH RAI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 2020-12-04. BRIJESH RAI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 20655/2020 (BRIJESH RAI VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER) Jabalpur, Dated 04. 12. 2020 Hearing through video conferencing. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. Rajeshwar Rao, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1/EOW. Challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to an order dated 12. 03. 2020 passed by Special Court, constituted under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Bhopal in Special Case No. 483/2016; whereby the trial Court has declined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner/accused person to lead further evidence. 2. The order sheets on record reveal that the prosecution closed its case on 25. 01. 2020 and thereafter, the matter was posted on 17. 02. 2020 for defence evidence. On said date i. e. 17. 02.
2020, the petitioner/accused was examined and was called upon to furnish the list of defence witnesses. It was, however, expressed on behalf of the accused that they don’t intend to file list of defence witnesses; instead, they would examine defence witnesses on their own. The order sheet records: 17-02-2020 ---izdj. k vfHk;qDr ijh{k. k gsrq fu;r gSA vfHk;qDr czts’k jk; ,oa lqnkek >kMs ds /kkjk&313 na0iz0la0 ds varxZr vfHk;qDr ijh{k. k vafdr fd;s x;sA ;g izdj. k ,slk ugha gS fd /kkjk 232 na0iz0la0 ds varxZr dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA vfHk;qDrx. k dks cpko esa izos’k djk;k x;kA vfHk;qDr czts’k jk; ,oa lqnkek >kM+s dh vksj ls cpko lk{; nsuk O;Dr fd;k x;k ijarq vfHk;qDrx. k dh vksj ls dksbZ cpko lk{; lwph izLrqr ugha dh gS rFkk muds }kjk O;Dr fd;k x;k fd og vius cpko lk{kh Lo;a mifLFkr j[ksxkA vr% vkxkeh fu;r fnukad dks vfHk;qDrx. k vius&vius cpko lk{; vko’;d :i ls Lo;a mifLFkr j[ksa] cpko lk{; mifLFkr u vkus dh n’kk esa izdj. k esa cpko dk volj lekIr dj vafre rdZ Jo. k fd;s tk;sxsA izdj.
k vfHk;qDrx. k dh vksj ls cpko lk{; izLrqfr@ vafre rdZ gsrq fnukad 03@03@2020 dks izLrqr gksA 3. The matter was, accordingly, posted on 03. 03. 2020. On said date, an adjournment was sought. By way of indulgence, last opportunity was granted to the accused person to produce defence witness/evidence and the matter was posted on 12. 03. 2020. The order sheet dated 03. 03. 2020 records : 03-03-2020 jkT; }kjk Jh vkj- ds [k=h lgk;d ftyk yksd vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjhA vkjksih czts’k jk; (A-1) lfgr &lanhi xqIrk vfHk;qDr A vkjksih lqnkek >kMs+ (A-2) lfgr Jh jtuh’k cjS;kA izdj. k vfHk;qDrx. k dh vkssj ls cpko lk{; izLrqfr ,oa vafre rdZ gsrq fu;r gSA vkjksihx. k ds vf/koDrk cpko lk{; djus gsrq le; pkgrs gSA le; bl funsZ’k ds lkFk iznku fd;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh frfFk ij vko’;d :i ls cpko lk{; izLrq djsaA cpko lk{; gsrq vafre volj fn;k tkrk gS] cpko lk{; izLrqr u djus dh fLFkfr esa cpko lk{; dk volj lekIr dj vafre rdZ Jo. k fd, tk,axsA izdj. k vfHk;qDrx.
k dh vksj ls cpko lk{; izLrqfr ,oa vafre rdZ gsrq fnukad 12-03-2020 dks is’k gks A 4. On 12. 03. 2020, when the matter was taken up, two applications were filed by the accused person for summoning five defence witnesses and for staying of further proceedings. 5. Vide impugned order, the trial Court taking into consideration that despite ample opportunity being given to the accused persons, they have not produced the list of defence witnesses, rejected the same on the anvil that having given up to file the list of defence witnesses and having undertaken to produce the defence witnesses, the act on behalf of the accused person in filing the said applications was a tactic adopted by the accused person with a view to delay the trial. 6. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the trial Court committed jurisdictional error in closing the right of the petitioner/accused person to lead further evidence.
However, taking into consideration the fact that despite ample opportunity being given to the petitioner, the petitioner did not file the list of defence witnesses and instead, filed an application for staying of further proceedings, we do not perceive any jurisdictional error being committed by the trial Court in rejecting the applications for staying of further proceedings and for summoning the defence witnesses. 7. In view whereof, the petition under Section 482 of CrPC stands dismissed. (Sanjay Yadav) (Vijay Kumar Shukla) Acting Chief Justice Judge vinod Digitally signed by VINOD VISHWAKARMA Date: 2020. 12. 07 12:37:13 +05'30'
Source: High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.