DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. RAGHUBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence assailing the order dated 25.01.2011 and 9.12.2011 passed by the learned ACMM, New Delhi in a complaint case bearing no. 277/1/1993 titled DRI Vs. Raghubir Singh and Ors. By virtue of the order dated 25.01.2011, the post charge evidence of the complainant/petitioner was closed as it was observed that the case pertains to the year 1993 and the charge was framed on 31.03.2007 and since then, despite several opportunities being given to the petitioner, no witness was produced for the purpose of cross examination. Even on the date of passing of the order, no witness for the evidence was present, and accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 17.02.2011. The second order was passed on 09.12.2011 by virtue of which the learned ACMM had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of as many as ten witnesses, details of which were given in the application itself.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Satish Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by him that the order regarding closure of evidence passed on 25.01.2011 was not at all warranted in as much as the learned Trial Court had closed the prosecution evidence on the ground that the case was an old one pertaining to the year 1993 and the petitioner himself was not responsible for the delay in this regard. The learned counsel has contended that he had given the details of the various dates on which the matter was adjourned, not because of the fault of the petitioner, but because of the Court being on leave or because of fault of non-production of the case property. It has also been contended that even after framing of the charge, no doubt, there were dates when the witnesses were not present but on such dates, the petitioner could not procure attendance of the witnesses as the petitioner at best could serve the summons on the said witnesses and it was the responsibility of the Court to have obtained the presence of the witnesses by adopting coercive processes. The learned counsel has also contended that the witnesses whose details have been given in the application are very essential for arriving at a just decision of the case as it was a case of heavy recovery of car spare parts, video cassettes and other articles. He has also relied upon the case titled State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr., 1987 AIR(SC) 1321 in order to support his submissions that the petitioner was not responsible for causing the delay and in any case the delay could not be a ground for refusing to permit the cross examination of witnesses whose testimony is very essential for arriving at a just decision of the case.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the record.