EUGNA DSILVA Vs. GANJU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harbhajan Lal Nayyar petitioner has filed this petition thereby challenging the order dated 3rd February, 1990 of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi thereby allowing the prosecution to examine 24 witnesses.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that a challan was filed in the concerned court against the petitioner for trial under Ss. 419, 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 1296 dated 22nd October, 1974 P.S. Daryaganj. The challan was filed in court on 5th April, 1977. vide order dated 22nd March 1979 of an Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi charges under Ss. 419,420,468 and 471 Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. The recording of the evidence was commenced on 7th April, 1979. Prosecution was able to examine 11 witnesses in all and after giving numerous opportunities to the prosecution the prosecution evidence was finally closed on 26th July, 1988. Statement of the accused was recorded on the same day and thereafter the defence evidence was closed on 11th July, 1989. The case was adjourned to 4th August, 1989 final arguments and thereafter on a joint request by the learned counsel for the parties it was adjourned to 25th August, 1989. It is on this date that an application under Sec. 3 II of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) was moved by the State praying for permission to examine 24 witnesses named in the said application. The ground for permission mentioned therein are that "these witnesses have remained somehow un-examined" and "testimony of these witnesses is essential for the just decision of the case".

(3.) This application was strongly opposed by the petitioner who has, inter alia, pleaded that it was a much belated application moved by the prosecution to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution story after the defence of the accused was disclosed and after the closing of the defence evidence. It was also pleaded that the State has not given details as to how the recording of the evidence was delayed. This application has, however, been allowed by learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate view impugned order.