GAVE DEI Vs. SUBASINI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but interesting question that arises for consideration in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, was justified in permitting the appellants, opposite parties herein, to adduce additional evidence in the appeal preferred by them against their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khurda in ICC No. 185 of 1990.

(2.) For better appreciation, a few facts giving rise to the present revision may be stated thus :The opposite parties faced trial in the aforesaid complaint case lodged by the present petitioner. Upon trial they were found guilty under Sections 323 and 354, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for each offence, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Against that judgment and order of conviction the opposite parties preferred Criminal Appeal No. 153/107/141 of 1995/92/91. While the appeal was pending adjudication, the/opposite parties filed a petition to call for certain documents from the Regional Office of Food Corporation of India, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar, to prove that at the relevant time when the occurrence was alleged to have taken place, opposite party No. 2 was present in his duty at the Regional Office and in order to prove such plea he may be permitted to examine his reliever. It was further stated that as according to the prosecution the alleged occurrence took place in front of the house of the Bisuni Behera, they may be permitted to examine him as defence witness his evidence being necessary for just decision of the case. It was further urged that there was previous hostility between the opposite parties and the petitioner and in order to prove the same they may be permitted to call for the F.I.R. and injury report in G.R. Case No. 884 of 1990. Besides, the above, they also prayed to further cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2 to elicit certain matters to facilitate the Court to arrive at the truth. The above prayer of the opposite parties was objected to by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Additional District Judge upon hearing the parties and relying upon two decisions reported in (1994) 7 OCR 243, Tusar Kanti Swain v. State of Orissa and 1987 Cri LJ 1061 : (AIR 1987 SC 1331), State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, allowed the petition and permitted the opposite parties to lead evidence as prayed for.