LOKANATH BEHERA Vs. GOLAK BEHARI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against an order dated 18.5.196( -) of the First Class Magistrate, Banki rejecting the prayer made by the prosecution for time to file further documents in the case. On 8 -2 -1965 the police submitted a charge sheet against 26 persons mentioned therein on the allegation that on the night of 19 -11 -1964 they formed an unlawful assembly and forcibly committed theft of paddy crops from plot No. 21 pertaining to khata No. 50 of Mouza Khoripanga belonging to one Nidhi Naik who had leased it on bhag to Lokanath Behera and Sanatan Behera. Charges were framed against the accused person on 16 -3 -1965 and the Magistrate began recording evidence in the case on 27 -5 -1965. After several adjournments were given to the prosecution to enable it to examine the investigating Officer, the prosecution closed its evidence on 19 -3 -1966. The recording of the evidence of the defence witnesses was closed on 7 -5 -1966 and the case was posted for bearing arguments to 18 -5 -1966. On that date an application was filed by the C.S.I. praying for time to file certain documents. The learned Magistrate rejected this application on the ground that as the defence was already closed, the prosecution cannot be given any further time to file documents. The C.S.I. filed a petition for time as he was not ready and time was allowed to 23 -6 -1966 as a last chance for hearing arguments. Later on that date the C.S.I. filed a document with a list and the learned Magistrate ordered that it, be put up on the date fixed. It may be stated here that the document so filed is a writ of delivery of possession in respect of certain plots of land covered by khata No. 53/3 of mouza Khoripanga. Neither the khata number nor any of the plot numbers therein tally with the plot number and khata number of the land from which the accused persons are alleged to have cut the paddy crops.

(2.) IT is argued by the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner that the document aforesaid should have been admitted by the learned Magistrate in exercise of his powers under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure. As indicated earlier the charge sheet in this case was filed as long ago as on 8 -2 -1965 and the prosecution evidence was closed about a year afterwards on 19 -3 -1966. There was ample time for the prosecution to put in such evidence as it considered necessary and relevant. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was any attempt to file the document before the prosecution closed its case. It is true that the powers of a Court under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure are very wide. But this very width of the power given to the Magistrate requires that he should use the same with very great caution. This power is meant to be exercised where the Court feels that some evidence is necessary to arrive at a just decision in the case, and where the Court so feels it is for the Court to summon and examine the witnesses. This power given to the Court is not meant to be exercised to enable one party or the other to fill up gaps in the case and to improve it by a new matter at a late stage and much less is this power meant to be exercised at the bidding of any of the parties.