DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INT Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition which his under section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seeks further time to complete its evidence in a custom case. The case relates to smuggling of gold. It seems that earlier also ACMM has closed the evidence of the petitioner vide order dated 7.8.2002 against which petitioner herein had filed Crl.R. 942/02 which was disposed of vide this Court's order dated 15.11.2002 which reads as under :-

(2.) It appears from the record that the main witness namely S, Parmeshwaran, who was the seizing officer, is posted in Dubai, Summons were duly served on him but he could not appear on that date for want of permission from the Ministry. Therefore, he made request that some other date may be given and the summons be sent through Ministry, learned ACMM, However, declined to give further time and closed the evidence in view of this Court's order dated 15.11.02 passed in Crl.M.M. 942/2002, and hence this petition. Learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, granting further opportunity would amount to review of the order dated 15.11.2002 passed by this Court in Crl.M.M. 942/2002 whereby the petitioner was granted three months time to conclude its evidence. Learned counsel also cited a decision in the case of State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantam Nair, (2001) 4 SCC 752 to support the contention that High Court cannot review its own' judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake. There is no dispute regarding this preposition of law. Review means having fresh look at the issues involved in the case and re-decide them by over ruling the earlier decision. When issues of facts or law are re-judged either on the basis of material already available on record or on the basis of some fresh material that would amount to review. In the present case no such exercise is involved nor even prayed for. The petitioner had done its duty by affecting service of summons on S. Parmeshwaran for 14.2.2003. If the witness does not appear despite service of summons, the petitioner cannot be blamed. To extend the period for cross examination of such a witness after completing formalities, would under the circumstances, not amount to review of the order dated 15.11.2002 passed by this Court in Crl.M.M. 942/2002. Rather it will be steps in aid for making the order fruitful. The witness S. Parmeshwaran who is posted at Dubai could not come on 14.2.2003. as necessary permission from the Ministry was lacking although he was duly served. Learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken that the necessary permission will be obtained and witness shall certainly appear on the next date. S. Parmeshwaran being the seizing officer is obviously the most material witness in the case. By serving the summons on witness the petitioner had done all it could do. Therefore closure of evidence would mean that the petitioner will have to suffer for none of its fault.

(3.) Under the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the period for completion of petitioner's evidence is extended by two months from the next date fixed by learned trial Court. LCR be sent back immediately.