BIMAL KUMAR CHAKRAVORTY REVISIONIST Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) against the order dated 5.3.2002, whereby and whereunder, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanhad, in connection with Chirkunda (Maithon) PS Case No. 251 of 1993 allowed the petition of the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code for enabling the prosecution to get the signature of the accused in the remittance register verified by Handwriting Expert.

(2.) Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that the prosecution is in the habit of filing such type of petition even if there is no legality or propriety. It is further pointed out that the prosecution has earlier filed a petition under Section 311 of the Code to recall PW 4 which was allowed and the remittance register was called for and the said register was also verified and exhibited by PW 4 itself and again this petition has been filed provision by in order to delay the disposal of the case for examining the signature of the accused by Handwriting Expert though such type of the petition was already filed by the petitioner earlier which was rejected by the learned court below. It is further argued that the prosecution case was already closed twice in this case and the argument was also heard after examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code which was also done twice but even then this petition has been filed at the belated stage in order to fill up the lacunae which cannot be allowed at this stage when the matter was finally heard by the court below itself. Moreover, there was no sufficient grounds or reasons for getting the signature of the accused to be verified or examined by the expert as on this score itself, PW 4 was recalled and remittance register as well as the signature of the accused was exhibited and verified. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Bigan Mahto V/s. State of Bihar, 2000 3 EastCriC 1629.

(3.) Obviously, earlier the prosecution case was closed and thereafter again a petition under Section 311 of the Code was filed by the petitioner to recall PW 4 which was allowed and thereafter PW 4 was examined as well as remittance register was also called which was also exhibited. Again the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code and the argument was also heard partly but at this belated stage, the prosecution again filed such type of petition only in order to delay in disposal of the case. The prosecution cannot be allowed to file such type of petition again and again which is an after-thought in order to fill up the lacunae. There appears that the court below has committed error in allowing the petition and, therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.