Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamlal Rajput vs Special Police Esthapna Lokayukt ... on 2 January, 2019
1
Criminal Revision No.6223 of 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(DB : SHEEL NAGU & VIVEK AGARWAL, JJ.)
Criminal Revision No.6223 of 2018
Shyamlal Rajput
Vs.
Vishesh Police Sthapna, Lokayukt Karyalaya, Bhopal & Anr.
Shri B.S. Dhakad, Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
(Passed on 02 January, 2019) Per Vivek Agarwal, J. :-
This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by orders dated 17.12.2018 and 19.12.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Vidisha, whereby the applications under Section 91 and 311, Cr.P.C. have been rejected and then again vide order dated 19.12.2018, another application seeking adjournment has been rejected.
2. As far as order dated 19.12.2018 is concerned, the learned Special Judge has categorically noted that on account of some pain in his eyes, the learned counsel did not appear before the Court and extending such alibi sought time to file revision petition before the High Court as earlier application to call defence witnesses Bablu Samaiya and Kanti Kumar was rejected by the learned Special Judge. However, the learned Special Judge has noted that on 2 Criminal Revision No.6223 of 2018 14.12.2018, on request of the accused, an opportunity was extended to complete their final arguments and again on the request of the counsel, time was granted on 17.12.2018. On 17.12.2018, leave was granted to file written arguments, but the learned Special Judge recorded a finding that the learned counsel is deliberately not arguing the matter and is seeking adjournment with a view to delay the matter and, therefore, extending three days' time to file written submissions and if he so desires, he can appear in person and deliver his oral submissions within the aforesaid period of three days, application seeking adjournment has been rejected.
3. This Court finds no illegality in said order dated 19.12.2018 in the backdrop that earlier application under Section 91, Cr.P.C., second application under Section 311, Cr.P.C., third application under Section 233/311, Cr.P.C. and fourth application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. were filed, which were marked as IA Nos.1,2,3 and 4 respectively.
4. IA No.1 was filed under Section 91, Cr.P.C. seeking production of seized notes. Learned Special Judge after recording contention of the Special Public Prosecutor that they have already produced bottles of washing obtained from the hands and also the notes, which were seized from the accused and the liquid or the amount already produced by the prosecution, nothing remains with them, rejected the application under Section 91, Cr.P.C. 3
Criminal Revision No.6223 of 2018
5. As far Section 91, Cr.P.C. is concerned, it deals with summoning of documents or other things and as per the law laid down in the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam as reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 an order rejecting the application under Section 91, Cr.P.C. for production of a document is an interlocutory order, hence, not revisable. Even otherwise in the case of The Assistant Collector of the Customs, Bombay & another v. L.R. Melwani & another as reported in AIR 1970 SC 962, it has been held that whether a particular document should be summoned or not, is essentially in the discretion of the trial Court; except for very goods reasons, the High Court should not interfere with that discretion. Therefore, this Court does not perceive any apparent illegality in the present case rejecting the application under Section 91, Cr.P.C.
6. Another IA under Section 233/311, Cr.P.C. is in regard to summoning of defence witnesses Bablu Samaiya and Kanti Kumar. Public Prosecutor had submitted that they are being summoned to depose in regard to payment of VAT on the sand mines allotted in their favour, but such VAT receipts have already been exhibited by Incharge Officer of Mining Branch and even a gazette notification in this regard has already been produced and earlier application of the accused to produce such witnesses were rejected by the Court, therefore, the second application on the same ground being not maintainable has been rejected by the trial Court. 4
Criminal Revision No.6223 of 2018
7. I.A.No.3 under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was filed to re-examine witness Ashalata Vaidya, the then Mining Officer. It has come on record that she was sufficiently cross-examined and, therefore, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that merely to fill the lacuna, she cannot be resummoned. Learned Special Judge has also recorded a finding that when the learned counsel for accused was asked as to which questions are required to be put to said prosecution witness Ashalata Vaidya, then he did not make any averment, therefore, there being no basis to support application I.A.No.3, such application has been rejected.
8. I.A. No.4 was filed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. claiming that on 14.12.2018, he had argued the matter upto 5.30 PM and then had left for Bhopal, therefore, he could not gather any knowledge about order dated 14.12.2018 and accordingly he may be permitted to approach the Special Judge by filing such application, which has been marked as I.A.No.4. Learned Special Judge recorded a finding that sufficient time was given to the learned counsel for accused to argue his matter and, therefore, this application too was rejected.
9. In fact, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam as reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153, even order under Section 311, Cr.P.C. is of interim nature. Besides this, from the tone and tenure of the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner is adopting delaying tactics for the reasons best known to him. There 5 Criminal Revision No.6223 of 2018 is no basis for promoting such delaying tactics as has been adopted by the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to substantiate and justify volley of applications shot by the petitioner. Having failed to make out any case for successive applications, which only reflects motive of the petitioner to delay the case by hook or crook, this Court would not like to be a party to such tactics, therefore, this petition is dismissed at the threshold. Parties to bear their own costs.
(SHEEL NAGU) (VIVEK AGARWAL)
Judge Judge
02/01/2019 02/01/2019
Meh/-
Digitally signed by MEHFOOZ AHMED
Date: 2019.01.03 17:49:58 +05'30'