GUDARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 482 Cr. P.O. The four applicants are being prosecuted for the alleged recovery of Copper wire belonging to Railway. This wire is said to have been recovered on a personal search of these four applicants on the same dayviz. 3-3-1972 and also at the same time. After the necessary investigation four separate complaints were filed against the applicants in the court of the Railway Magistrate at Allahabad. The four applicants were ordered to be summoned and they appeared in court on 19-2-1973. On 5-3-73 the prosecution was ordered to produce its witnesses. After several adjournments the examination of one prosecution witness started and completed on 18-12-73. On 21-1-1974 an application was moved by the prosecution that the trial should be stayed to enable it to obtain expert opinion regarding the question whether recovered wire is Railway Property or not. The Magistrote allowed this application and ordered the case to be consigned till receipt of the experts report. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was submitted by the police against these applicants under sections 379 and 411 IPC also. This police case was transferred to the court of the same Magistrate. On 28-10-1974 in this police case too a similar application was given by the prosecution for consigning the case awaiting the report of the expert and this application was also allowed. The prayer in this application is that the proceedings in both these cases should be quashed firstly because a joint trial of the four applicants was illegal, secondly because the prosecution could not be permitted to collect fresh evidence after the trial had started and thirdly because the prosecution was guilty of laches resulting in serious prejudice to the applicants.

(2.) ON behalf of the State, a counter affidavit was filed in which it had been stated that the wire was sent to the expert and his report has been received. According to the contention of the learned counsel for the State, there was no undue delay and the prosecution had a right to collect fresh evidence. The allegation that a joint trial of the four applicants is going on has not been denied.

(3.) SO far as the question of sending the wire to the expert for his opinion is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this was not permissible. He was unable to cite any authority for this proposition. Section 344 CrPC (old) permits the court to adjourn any enquiry or trial due to absence of any witness or any other reasonable cause. To my mind therefore permitting the prosecution to obtain expert opinion is not an illegal procedure.