PRAMOD KUMAR GOLA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed under section 397 Cr. P.C. read with section 401/482 Cr. P.C. assailing the order dated 31.01.2012 of the learned ASJ, Patiala House District Court, New Delhi. The petitioner was facing prosecution in a criminal complaint under section 56 Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. Charges had been framed against the petitioner on 30.07.2001 and while framing the charges, the learned ACMM had fixed four dates for concluding the prosecution evidence. The respondent /department had examined two witnesses. However, one of its witnesses namely Mr. Arun Sharma, Ex. E.O. failed to appear on 13.10.2010 despite service of summons. The learned MM closed the evidence of the department. The department challenged the same in revision petition before the ASJ, who vide the impugned order allowed the petition and granted one opportunity as final to examine Mr. Arun Sharma at the responsibility of the department subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/ -. The said order is assailed by the petitioner in this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the department and perused the record.

(3.) THERE is no doubt that the case is of the year 1987 and has been delayed considerably. However, the charges came to be framed only on 30.07.2011. It was because of the fact that the case was of the year 1987 that four dates were given by the ACMM for conclusion of the prosecution evidence. It is also seen that the ACMM had not only ordered on 30.7.2011 for service, but, also attendance of the witnesses to be the responsibility of the prosecution. On last of the four dates i.e. on 13.10.2011, which was fixed for examination of the prosecution witness as per the order dated 13.07.2011, one witness was present and examined as PW -4. Mr. Arun Sharma, who was the last prosecution witness, was not present despite service. Since Mr. Arun Sharma was not only cited witness of the prosecution, but was not present on 13.10.2011 despite service, order of closing of the prosecution evidence by the ACMM does not appear to be in the interest of justice. This is irrespective of the fact that it was the responsibility of the prosecution to serve the witness and make him available for examination. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the ASJ granting one more opportunity to the prosecution to examine Mr. Arun Sharma on its responsibility and subject to cost seems to be just and appropriate. There is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner is not going to be prejudiced by the examination of the cited witness who is to be produced by the prosecution at its own responsibility. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.