BHARAT BHUSHAN KOUL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE entering into his defence after examination under section 342 Cr. PC, the petitioner/accused herein had his listed witnesses, nine in number, examined whereafter he sought summoning more of them through two different applications one for having the General Manager and another an Officer of BSNL to depose regarding availability of back -up material relating to deleted data pertaining to his and complainants mobile phones summoned; and another for summoning a particular Police Officer along with record of a previous inquiry stated to have been conducted against him departmentally, which did not find favour with learned trial Judge who, while observing that both the petitions had been instituted to delay the trial, dismissed the same vide his order dated 13 -02 -2008 impugned herein.

(2.) GROUNDS pleaded are that by disallowing petitioners request for summoning of witnesses/materials, as aforesaid, learned trial Judge has virtually acted to petitioners prejudice by disabling him to complete his defence in a case loaded with serious repercussions/ implications again him. During course of submissions, his counsel while reiterating the contents of this petition has also contended that since the case had been instituted less than a year before and was almost at the culminating stage, there was no question of any delay that could be attracted particularly because his statement under section 342 Cr. PC had only been recorded on 27th of November, 2007. In rebuttal, learned State counsel has, however, contended that harassed by speed of trial against his expectations of delay, the petitioner has chosen to attempt at prolonging the trial by instituting groundless petitions like the ones dismissed by learned trial Judge, which were both devoid of all force.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Before proceeding ahead, it would be appropriate to observe that whether speed or delay, in particular judicial proceedings, both should be guided and determined by requirements of substantial justice and not left to be debated for their own sake. Instantly, even while the petitioner/accused appears to have exhausted his list of witnesses, the door to summon any one further would not be automatically closed on him in the name of speed of the trial particularly while the material sought to be brought on record was stated to have some bearing on merits of the matter. Trial Courts are meant to get the abstract truth of the matter and act towards that rather than noticing defects in conduct of a particular case by a particular party and punishing him for the same. In given circumstances of the case, it would perhaps not have been too much, had the learned trial Judge made a time bound attempt to ascertain relevance of the proposed testimony projected by petitioner/accused, which could perhaps also have saved this couple of months consumed during proceedings herein.