NESAR AHMAD ALIAS NASSER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this application the petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.09.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, F.T.C. No. 3 Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 303/2000 whereby he has allowed the petitions dated 5.3.2003 and 14.9.200 6 filed by the prosecution permitting them to get the documents proved and marked as Exts.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that after 26 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and three witnesses on behalf of the defence had been examined and the case had been fixed for argument on 4.9.2006, the Special p.p. on behalf of the prosecution instead of starting argument filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. only for the purpose of vexation or for causing delay prayed for adducing a document which had been filed but had not been exhibitted as Ext. It was submitted in this connection that the document which the prosecution wanted to bring on record at the stage of argument had never been introduced or mentioned in evidence by any of the prosecution witnesses including the father, brother uncle and maternal uncle of the deceased lady. It is further said that prior either to the prosecution had been given indulgence to lead further evidence on three occasions i.e. 5.9.2000, 23.11.2002 and 14.9.2006. It is said that or 14.9.2006 when defence started its argument and prayed for formal proof of marriage certificate which had already been mentioned 'X' for identification the prosecution also filed a copy of documents for getting it exhibited with an intent to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution case. In this connection reference was made to the case of Zahira Habibulla H. sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. wherein it was held that the power under Section 3 11 of Cr.P.C. is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence and the object of the section is to enable the court to arrive at the truth, irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to adduce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case and to uphold the truth and if the prosecutor is remiss in some way, the court can control the proceedings effectively so that the ultimate objective of truth is arrived at.

(3.) IN my opinion, the court below has erred in law, in regard being had to the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, by allowing both the parties to prove their documents.