SARBESWAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner calls in question the defensibility of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S. T. No.38/207 of 1983 whereby the petition filed by him for grant of opportunity to adduce further evidence on behalf of the defence was rejected.

(2.) THE essential facts which have laid to the filing of the present application are that on the basis of P. R. No. 12/92/93, 2 (a) CC No 150 of 1992 was instituted against the petitioner and one Bipin Behari Behera under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the Court of SDJM. Bhubaneswar, which ultimately gave rise to S. T. No. 38/207 of 1983 in the Court of Additional Sessions judge, Bhubaneswar. By order dated 13 -7 -1995, the learned trial Judge acquitted the said Bipin Behari Behera under Section 232 of the Code. However, he recorded a finding that the trial should proceed as far as the present petitioner was concerned and accordingly adjourned the matter to 20th of July, 1995 directing production of the petitioner on the said date. The case proceeded against the petitioner and after closure of the prosecution case on 18 -8 -1995 a memorandum was filed indicating that the accused did not want to adduce any evidence. However, on 22 -8 -1995 a petition was filed that the said memo was filed without consulting the counsel. He filed a petition to examine the Revenue inspector to prove the spot and one Bipin Behari Behera who had been assaulted by Pradip Ranjan Potnaik and the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar. It was mentioned in the said petition that the Revenue Inspector and Bipin Behari Behera wore present in Court. The said petition was dealt with by the learned trial Judge who partly allowed the application. It is essential to refer to the relevant portion of the said order :

(3.) REFUTING the submission of Sri Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel has contended that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner but he has not availed the same and at a belated stage it is not open to him to re -open the trial. It is further urged by him that no prejudice has been caused to the accused by non -examination of the said Bipin Behera. It is also canvassed that the said person being a co -accused cannot be summoned as a witness.