KARTICK NAIYA Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned Counsel of both sides and on perusal of the materials-on-record, it appears that on the basis of the self-same incident Canning P.S. Case Nos. 5 and 6, dated 6.6.1980 were started and separate charge-sheet was submitted in both the cases. Both the cases were also committed to the Court of "Sessions and by an order of this Hon'ble Court passed on 14.6.1988, a direction was issued to the effect that both the cases were to be heard and disposed of by the same Court of Sessions one after another.

(2.) It appears that in Canning P.S. Case No. 5 dated 6.6.80, the evidence is closed and it is pending at the argument stage. As regards the Canning P.S. Case No. 6, dated 6.6.80, on the basis of which a case Leing S.P. 1(1) of 1990 was started, is pending at the stage of hearing of argument.

(3.) It appears from the materials-on-record that prior to the close of the prosecution evidence, a petition was filed before the learned Sessions Court on 9.7.2003 praying for examination of 10 prosecution witnesses alleging that they were vital witnesses. It also appears that without disposing of that application, the trial Court proceeded to pass an order closing the prosecution evidence and opted to examine the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter on 1.8.2003 passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer as made by the defecto-complainant on 9.7.2003. Ground given in the said order is that sufficient opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce those witnesses but witnesses were not produced. Accordingly, the Court had no other alternative but to close the evidence and then proceeded with the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.