Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sushri Padma Tamrakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul, Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
Criminal Revision No. 3462/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 3462 OF 2022.
BETWEEN :-
SUSHRI PADMA TAMRAKAR D/O
LATE SHRI SUKHDEV PRASAD
TANRAKAR, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASHIER
ASSISTANT GRADE III R/O
HANUMAN MANDIR ROAD,
WARD NO. 12
VIJAYRAGHAVGARH TAHSIL
VIJAYRAGHVGRAH DISTRICT
KATNI (M.P.)
....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR BAKSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH VISHESH POLICE
ESTHAPNA LOKAYUKT SANGATHAN
JABALPUR, JABALPUR SAMBHAG,
JABALPUR (M.P.)
....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SATYAM AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 26/09/2022
Delivered on : 12/10/2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Criminal Revision No. 3462/2022
This criminal revision coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE
PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, passed the following :
ORDER
Applicant has filed this revision petition under Sections 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the order dated 08/07/2022 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1988, Katni [M.P.] in Special Case No 5/2017, whereby, the learned trial court has rejected the application dated 24/06/2022 (Annexure No.-26) and application dated 02/09/2021 (Annexure No. -17).
2. Though, in the prayer of the petition, the applicant also prayed to quash the order dated 24/06/2022, but at the time of argument, he did not press the revision petition in relation to order dated 24/06/2022 and also did not press the revision petition in relation to rejection of application dated 02/09/2021. Therefore, the revision petition in relation to order dated 24/06/2022 and order dated 08/07/2022 as far as it relates to rejection of application dated 02/09/2021 is dismissed as not pressed. The applicant has pressed impugned order dated 08/07/2022, only to the extent of rejection of application dated 24/06/2022.
3. The relevant facts are within a narrow compass. In the aforementioned special case, the applicant is accused for the offence punishable u/s 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned trial Court has framed charge against the applicant on 17/01/2018. The complainant Deepak Kumar Trivedi (PW/3) was examined during 15/03/2019 to 24/06/2022. His examination-in- chief was recorded between 15/03/2019 to 03/02/2020 and cross-examination was completed between 03/03/2021 to 24/06/2022. On the last date of cross- examination of complainant, applicant has filed an application for recalling the complainant Deepak Kumar Trivedi (PW/3) to clarify two transcripts prepared by the prosecution and by applicant respectively and also clarify contradictions 3 Criminal Revision No. 3462/2022 and omissions between both the transcripts. Therefore he has requested to recall the complainant for further cross-examination.
4. The respondent/ State has objected the prayer in his reply that Ex.P/6, Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/10 are annexed with the case and if defence seeks to ask question to witness on any point, he is free to do the same. In presence of both the parties and the witness, the CD has been played once before the Court, at that time transcript (Ex.P/10) has been proved. The reason to replay the CD in presence of witness is not clear from the application. Examination of Deepak Trivedi (PW/3) is being carried on since 2018. The application has been filed to cause delay in the case. Hence application is liable to be rejected.
5. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties has recorded the findings that Deepak Kumar Trivedi (PW/3) has been examined, if there are any inconsistencies in the transcript and the CD, the applicant can clarify it at the stage of final argument. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rejected the application dated 24/06/2022.
6. From the perusal of the case, it appears that on 03/02/2020 during examination-in-chief of Deepak Kumar Trivedi (PW/3), relevant CD (Article-B) was played before the trial Court in the presence of both the parties and after listening the CD, complainant in paragraph 11 of examination-in-chief stated, what conversation is recorded and between whom it is recorded. On 28/05/2021 the applicant/accused had started cross-examination of Deepak Kumar Trivedi (PW/3). It appears from the deposition sheet of Deepak Kumar Trivedi (PW/3) that on 28/05/2021, the applicant had made a request to call for CD and to play it in the presence of the witness but the learned trial court has rejected the prayer of the applicant.
7. As per the prosecution, the aforementioned CD was prepared by the prosecution on the basis of tape-recorded conversation between complainant and applicant/ accused in respect of demand of bribe, which is an important electronic record and transcript prepared by the prosecution on the basis of 4 Criminal Revision No. 3462/2022 aforementioned CD. The CD was played at the time of examination-in-chief of complainant. Consequently, the cross-examination based on the recorded conversation in the CD is a valuable legal right of the applicant, but the trial court has erred in not allowing the prayer and application of the accused. By doing so the learned trial Court has infringed the legal right vested in favour of the accused. Hence, the revision petition deserves to be partly allowed.
8. Resultantly, the revision petition is partly allowed, and impugned order dated 08/07/2022 is set aside to the extent of rejection of application dated 24/06/2022. The application dated 24/06/2022 is allowed. Learned trial Court is directed to recall the complainant Deepak Kumar Trivedi (PW/3) for further cross-examination to the extent and limited in respect of aforementioned CD. It is made clear that the learned trial court shall also recall the CD play it and permit cross-examination of the complainant to that extent and looking to the lengthy cross-examination of the complainant already undertaken by the counsel for the accused. It is also made clear that the counsel for the applicant/ accused must complete cross-examination of the complainant on the same day. No further opportunity shall be given for the same purpose.
9. With the aforementioned, the revision petition stands partly allowed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
MISHRA
ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
2022.10.12 15:59:22 +05'30'