IRSHAD AHMAD MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged order dtd. 2/1/2015 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla, in the case titled State vs. Aijaz Ahmad Mir and others arising out of FIR No. 17/1997 for offences under Sec. 366, 376 RPC of Police Station, Panzla. Vide the aforesaid order, the application of the prosecution under Sec. 540 of J&K Cr.P.C. has been allowed.

(2.) It is contended in the petition that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the application for recording the statement of the prosecutrix was made by the prosecution at a belated stage after the prosecution evidence had already been closed and even the defence evidence had been closed. It is further contended that the petitioners are facing trial since the year 1997 and their fundamental right to speedy trial has been infringed by delaying tactics of the prosecution. It is also contended that by allowing the prosecution to produce the prosecutrix as a witness at this belated stage, the learned trial court has permitted the prosecution to fill up the lacuna.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the grounds of challenge.