BHARAT LODHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Mr. Bharat Lodha, is aggrieved by the order dated 7.5.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udiapur and by the order dated 8.6.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur. By the former order, the Magistrate had allowed an application filed by the prosecution under Sections 173 (8), 242, 294 I.P.C. read with Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. and Sections 165, 73 of the Evidence Act read with 311A of the Crimial P.C. By the latter order the learned Judge had confirmed the order dated 7.5.2011.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial for offence under Sec. 409 I.P.C., ever since the year 2008. Since the bail application has been rejected both by the Sessions Court and by this Court, the petitioner continues to languish in jail. During the pendency of the trial, the prosecution had moved an application for summoning of an additional witnesses on 12.6.2009. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Although the said order continues to be under challenge before the higher Courts, but during the pendency of the challenge the trial has almost come to conclusion. For, while the prosecution has completed its evidence, while the prosecution submitted its written arguments, the defence has also submitted its written argument. Therefore, the case was poised for final arguments and for pronouncement of judgment. But meanwhile the prosecution has moved an application under aforementioned provisions of laws for taking on record certain documents and for recalling certain witnesses and for taking the sample of the petitioner handwriting. The said application was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 7.5.2011. Since, the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Judge. However, the learned Judge has confirmed the order dated 7.5.2011 vide his order dated 8.6.2011. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended that the documents the prosecution is trying to bring on record were already available with the investigating agency. Thus, these are not documents which have been discovered for the first time. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be permitted to bring these documents almost at the end of the trial in order to fill up its lacunae. Secondly, that since the petitioner is languishing in the jail for last four years, the trial should be concluded as expeditiously as possible. Furthermore, even earlier this Court had directed the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of two months. Therefore, keeping in mind the right to speedy trial, this Court should direct the trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.