Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.No.2966/2013 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 14, 2015
Date of Decision: January 14, 2015
CRL.M.C. 2966/2013
CUSTOMS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate
CUSTOMS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate
VERSUS
BADRI PRASAD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Deepak Gandhi & Mr. Ritesh Chaudhary, Advocates
Through Mr. Deepak Gandhi & Mr. Ritesh Chaudhary, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Impugned order of 26th September, 2012, closing petitioner’s evidence, is assailed by learned counsel for petitioner on the ground that witness-S.B.Sinha was summoned for 26th September, 2012 but he could not appear on the day because he was unwell. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for no fault of petitioner, prosecution evidence stands closed to the detriment of petitioner as the evidence of witness-
S.B.Sinha is essential for just decision of this case because he was Dy.
Superintendent of Police (CBI) and was the Officer, who had recovered
51 slabs of silver worth more than Rupees One Crore and if he is not allowed to be examined then petitioner’s case would suffer.
This petition is opposed by learned counsel for respondent by relying upon a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in
2015:DHC:364 Crl.M.C.No.2966/2013 Page 2 Crl.M.C.No.806/2012 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raghubir
Singh & Ors. decided on 27th March, 2012 and by submitting that for the last two decades this case is pending and trial court has rightly closed petitioner’s evidence.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and decision cited, I find that in view of gravity of offence, recording of evidence of witness-S.B.Sinha is essential for just decision of the case, therefore, impugned order 26th September, 2012 is quashed and petitioner is granted two effective opportunities to get witness-S.B.Sinha examined as prosecution witness.
With aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2015 vn 2015:DHC:364
Impugned order of 26th September, 2012, closing petitioner’s evidence, is assailed by learned counsel for petitioner on the ground that witness-S.B.Sinha was summoned for 26th September, 2012 but he could not appear on the day because he was unwell. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for no fault of petitioner, prosecution evidence stands closed to the detriment of petitioner as the evidence of witness-
S.B.Sinha is essential for just decision of this case because he was Dy.
Superintendent of Police (CBI) and was the Officer, who had recovered
51 slabs of silver worth more than Rupees One Crore and if he is not allowed to be examined then petitioner’s case would suffer.
This petition is opposed by learned counsel for respondent by relying upon a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in
2015:DHC:364 Crl.M.C.No.2966/2013 Page 2 Crl.M.C.No.806/2012 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raghubir
Singh & Ors. decided on 27th March, 2012 and by submitting that for the last two decades this case is pending and trial court has rightly closed petitioner’s evidence.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and decision cited, I find that in view of gravity of offence, recording of evidence of witness-S.B.Sinha is essential for just decision of the case, therefore, impugned order 26th September, 2012 is quashed and petitioner is granted two effective opportunities to get witness-S.B.Sinha examined as prosecution witness.
With aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2015 vn 2015:DHC:364