KARAMAT ALI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this petition U/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 13/8/2008; whereby the learned trial Court has directed for summoning of three witnesses namely Pradeep Kumar Sharma, the Manager of the State Bank of Indore and Investigating Officer Siraj Mohammed as per the provision U/Sec.311 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are, the applicant is facing trial before JMFC, Indore in criminal case No.277/04 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 419, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 477 and 120-B of IPC, this case is pending since 1998. The learned trial Court has closed the evidence on 25/3/2008 and fixed the case for recording of the statement of accused. After recording of the statement of accused, the case is fixed for final arguments and thereafter for judgment on 13/8/2008. On this day, the learned trial Court after perusal of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the statements of three material witnesses are necessary for just decision of the case, therefore, ordered for summoning of the aforesaid witnesses for their statements and fixed the case for recoiding of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Indore. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 12/12/2008 after hearing the applicant, dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by which the applicant came up before this Court by this petition U/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that admittedly the applicant is facing trial since 1998 and 10 years have already been passed. The trial Court itself at one point of time, came to the conclusion that sufficient time has been granted to the prosecution for production of the evidence and pleased to close the evidence of the prosecution on 25/3/2008, thereafter, the prosecution has also filed an application U/Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. for production of two witnesses the Investigating Officer as well as Reader of the Collectorate office and that application has also been rejected by the trial Court by order dated 27/3/ 2008 and subsequently the final arguments had been heard and the case was fixed for judgment on 13/8/2008, but on that date the trial Court has again reviewed the earlier order passed by the same Court and came to the conclusion and directed for summoning of three witnesses by the impugned order under the provisions of 311 of Cr.P.C; which is apparently illegal and erroneous, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the trial Court.