Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nemichandra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2019
Bench: R.S. Jha, Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
Criminal Revision No.2440/2019
Nemichandra
-Versus-
State of M.P., through CBI, Vyapam Wing, Bhopal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sanjay Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri J.K. Jain, Assistant Solicitor General for the non-applicant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha, Acting Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
ORDER
(Jabalpur, dtd.25.6.2019) Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
Heard on admission.
2. The instant revision is filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short `the CrPC'] being aggrieved by the order dated 14-4-2019 passed by learned Eighth Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (CBI) Vyapam Cases, Bhopal passed in S.T. No.1000602/2014 whereby the Court below has allowed the application filed by the non-applicant under Section 311 of the CrPC for summoning Kuldeep Baliyan and Daulat Sheetlani as witnesses for recording their statements. 2
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order impugned is illegal as these two persons were not cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses filed by the non-applicant prosecution and, therefore, they could not have been summoned by the trial Court for recording their evidence.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that Section 311 of the CrPC empowers the Court to summon any person as a witness at any stage of the inquiry, trial or other proceedings and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submitted that by the same order an application filed by the applicant to summon prosecution witness, Sandeep Kumar Pawar was also allowed by the Court.
5. Regard being had to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order impugned. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the parties, we think it apt to reproduce Section 311 of the CrPC :
"311. Power to summon materialn witness, or examine person present.- Any Court may, at any stage of inquiry, 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 re-examine any person already examined; and he Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his 3 evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."
6. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it is graphically clear that the Court has been empowered to summon any person as a witness at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The power is not confined to any particular class or person. If the conditions envisaged in the Section are satisfied the Court can call a witness not only on the motion of either the prosecution or the defence but also it can do so on its own motion. Thus, the power of the Court to call any witness or witnesses already examined or to summon any witness can be invoked, even if the evidence in both sides is closed. [See: Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India, (1991) Supp 1 SCC 271].
7. In the present case, both the persons who have been sought to be examined as witnesses, namely, Kuldeep Baliyan and Daulat Sheetlani are the witnesses of the sample signature of the accused Pankaj Kumar in other case and the said sample of specimen signature was obtained in the presence of the prosecution witness Daulat Sheetlani and the samples were sent for handwriting expert opinion to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi and after receiving the report the same has been exhibited in the present case. Therefore, the trial Court has considered that 4 examination of these persons is essential for just and proper decision of the case.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting any interference in revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the revision is dismissed.
(R.S. Jha) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2019.07.08 11:47:57 +05'30'