JAKIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is preferred assailing the order dated 27.01.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, whereby application moved by the accused to summon the witness along with call detail of 04.06.2011 was rejected. Undisputedly, vide order dated 23.12.2014, learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar/Trial Judge was pleased to allow the application moved by the accused to summon the Manager, Vodafone Company along with call detail and location of mobile phone of the accused for the period from 31.05.2011 to 04.06.2011; Shri Lokesh Kumar, the Nodal Officer of Vodafone Company did appear before the Trial Judge with the call detail and location from 01.05.2011 to 03.06.2011 despite the fact that he was directed to produce the call detail till 04.06.2011; accused/petitioner herein moved an another application before the Trial Judge since call detail of 04.06.2011 has not been produced before the Trial Judge, therefore, officer may be summoned along with call detail of 04.06.2011 which was declined by the Trial Judge. Once Trial Judge himself has directed the defence witness to remain present along with call detail of accused phone for the period from 31.05.2011 to 04.06.2011, therefore, in the event of non production of call details for 04.06.2011 by the witness summoned learned Trial Court ought to have taken appropriate action against the witness instead of closing the opportunity of the defence which was done in the present case.

(2.) To my mind if witness fails to appear in compliance of order/summon issued to the witness or witness has failed to produce document called for, learned Court should not punish the party by closing the evidence. Instead learned Court should proceed against the witness so summoned compelling him either to remain present in the witness box or to produce the document called for, as the case may be.

(3.) It seems that learned Trial Judge was under pressure on the direction issued by this Court to expedite the trial of this case. Order to expedite the trial of the case does not mean that fair trial should not be held and trial should be concluded by denying fair opportunities to the parties. The order of the Trial Judge seems to be outcome of non application of judicial mind and is an illustration whereby it can be said that learned Trial Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Trial Judge.