RAMESH CHANDRA BHUYAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.11.2004 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack and to direct the Court below to record defence evidence after completion of evidence of the prosecution.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are accused in S.T. No. 527 of 1997 in which the prosecution evidence was closed on 17.7.2004 fixing 19.4.2004 for recording the statement of the accused persons; but their statements were recorded on 23.8.2004 when they desired to adduce evidence. It appears that before recording their statements, i.e., on 23.8.2004, an application was moved on 19.7.2004, by the learned counsel for the petitioners Under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.2. This was necessary as they wanted to put questions to P.W.2 to the effect whether he had sustained any injury or there was any dislocation of his right shoulder prior to alleged incident, because he is the witness who came after them and was present at the time of alleged incident and whether he had disclosed the alleged incident to the attending doctor. Other material questions were also to be put by them. But as the said application was not allowed, the petitioners approached this Court in Crl. Revision No. 590 of 2004 which was decided 10.9.2004 with a direction to recall P.W.2 for his further cross -examination by defence. Thereafter the learned Assistant Sessions Judge summoned P.W.2 for cross -examination but at the same time he directed the petitioner to adduce defence evidence, if any, after cross -examination of P.W.2 on which an application was moved by the petitioners with a prayer to allow them to adduce defence evidence only after completion of prosecution evidence. The same was rejected vide impugned order dated 8.11.2004.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that after cross -examination of P.W.2 is over only then the petitioners would be able to decide as to what defence further is required to be produced. Therefore, at this stage, when the cross -examination of P.W.2 has not been done, calling upon the accused persons to adduce defence evidence, if any, pending further cross -examination of P.W.2 is against the law and is abuse of the process of the Court which is liable to be prevented by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers Under Section 482, Cr.P.C.