BASUDEV PUROHIT Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') essentially two pointer have been raised for consideration. First relates to legality of the direction given by the learned Special Judge, Bhubanaswar requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,000.00 towards the expenses of defence witnesses. Second relates to the conclusion that the prayer to recall P.Ws. 2 and 4 for further cross- examination did not merit consideration.

(2.) A brief reference to the background facts is necessary. Petitioner, one of the two accused in T.R. No. 20 of 1987 pending before the learned Special Judge Bhubenswar, filed an application to recall P.Ws. 2 and 4 for further cross-examination. The prayer was rejected on the ground that these witnesses have been cross-examined at length since 1992. It was observed that the purpose of filing the petition was to prolong proceeding, though Court had directed for expeditious disposal of the case, another applica tion was filed praying, for time to aduce defence evidence. Prayer for issue of Summons to defence witnesses was also made. The prayer was accepted, but a direction was given that a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 was to be deposited by the petitioner towards expenses of those witnesses.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that further cross-examination was necessary in respect of P.W. 4 because in his evidence he has stated that the accused petitioner was directed to receive charge of accountant from 31-3-1985. The letter of the bank dated 20-3-1981 shows that the accused was asked to take over charge with effect from 31-3-1981. In view of said documents the statement of P.W. 4 was apparently a mistake of fact, and the therefore, further cross-examination of P.W. 4 was necessary. It was further stated that certain documents were required to be adduced in evidence, and the petitioner had filed an application in that regard. Therefore, P.W. 2 and 4 were required to be cross-examined further. It is submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 that details were wanting in the petition, and the aspects now pointed out were not urged earlier, and therefore, the learned Special Judge was justified in refusing to accept the prayer.