SUBRATA DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an accused in C.P. Case No. 860 of 2000, is aggrieved of the order dated 12.04.2017 by which his application under section 311 Cr.P.C has been declined.

(2.) Briefly stated, in the complaint-petition filed by the complainant-respondent no. 2 which has been registered as C.P. Case No. 860 of 2000 initially the Magistrate declined to take cognizance of the offence and the complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C by an order dated 01.03.2001. This order was challenged by the complainant in Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2001 which was allowed by order dated 27.09.2001. Against this order the petitioner came to this court in Cr. M. P. No. 5014 of 2001, however, without success. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate on 14.11.2002. The order taking cognizance was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 229 of 2002 which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad by an order dated 20.03.2003. The petitioner came to this Court in Cr. M. P. No. 386 of 2003 challenging the revisional order, however, again without success. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) which was converted into Cr. Appeal No. 1153 of 2004, however, by an order dated 22.10.2010 it was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner thereafter filed petition for discharge which was dismissed on 05.02.2014, against which the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2014. The criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 28.07.2015. The petitioner again approaches the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8864 of 2015 which was dismissed on 27.10.2015. Thereafter, charges for the offence under section 323, 341 and 506 IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were framed. During the trial, three witnesses were examined by the complainant; the complainant has examined himself as C.W. 1. The prosecution evidence was closed on 03.12.2016 and statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C on 08.12.2016. Thereafter, several documents were filed by the defence and the defence evidence was closed on 20.03.2017. The matter was posted for argument on 25.03.2017, when the petitioner has filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C for marking; (i) letter dated 24.04.2000 written by complainant to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, (ii) letter dated 25.02.2000 issued by the Harijan Cell to Mr. D. B. Raman, and (iii) letter dated 05.05.2000 written by D.B. Raman in response to letter dated 25.04.2000. The petitioner also prays for marking of the report which was called for by the Magistrate during the enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. For proving these documents, through the application under section 311 Cr.P.C the petitioner seeks summoning of the Additional District Magistrate-cum-In-charge Harijan Cell or any other competent person to produce complete records and mark the aforesaid documents.

(3.) Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that delay alone cannot be a ground to decline an application under section 311 Cr.P.C; it must be held that the application under section 311 Cr.P.C is a device to fill-up lacuna in the case which would cause such prejudice to the other party which may result in mis-carriage of justice.