UTTAM LAL RAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT being an accused has preferred this revision under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') against the order dated 15 -2 -2005, passed by Special Judge (SC and ST Atrocities) Mandla in Special Cri. Case No. 100/01, whereby respondent prosecuting agency has been permitted under section 311 of the Code for examining of remaining witnesses as mentioned in the charge -sheet at the stage of final arguments so being dissatisfied with it applicant prayed for setting aside the abovesaid order.

(2.) IT is undisputed fact that the trial under sections 420, 294, 506, Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(vi)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC and ST Act) is pending against the applicant and some other accused and Special Public Prosecutor has closed the evidence of prosecution on 24 -4 -2004 after examining only 5 witnesses out of 43 witnesses as mentioned in the charge -sheet and subsequent to it on 29 -4 -2004 after recording the accused statements the case was fixed for defence evidence and it was remained pending for so many dates for defence evidence and closed on 22 -12 -2004 by fixing the date 3 -1 -2005 for final arguments and again adjourned for 5 -1 -2005 and on such date during the course of arguments some query was made by the Court to the Special Public Prosecutor regarding non -examination of the remaining witnesses of the prosecution then an application under section 311 of Code was submitted on behalf of prosecution with a prayer to call and examine all the remaining witnesses. The same was replied by applicant and on consideration Trial Court has passed the impugned order to summon them all remaining witnesses and fixed for recording the prosecution evidence.

(3.) APPLICANT has preferred this revision on the ground that after closing evidence the prosecution had no right to call or recall any of the witnesses and more so at the stage of final arguments such an opportunity could not be given to the prosecution. He also prayed in revision memo that by examining five witnesses, prosecution closed their evidence therefore, at the subsequent stage no opportunity to fill -up the lacunae could have been given to the prosecution, also raised the objection if such an order is maintained then that will cause a grave injustice with the applicant/accused and his right of defence would be seriously affected and prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Court.