AMARJEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Alok Singh, J. -
(1.) BHUWAN Chandra Joshi is facing trail for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Special Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2010 in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nainital and present petitioner is one of the witnesses in this case. It is the case of the petitioner that she was abducted by Bhuwan Chandra Joshi and she was pressurized to give statement in his favour, therefore, under the coercion and pressure, she got her statement recorded in favour of Bhuwan Chandra Joshi and was declared hostile; but after some time, having gained the courage, she approached the Vigilance Department and made a complaint that she was forced to give wrong statement, therefore, her statement should be recorded afresh; on her request, Vigilance Department moved an application before the trial court and learned trial Judge permitted the petitioner to appear in the witness box to record her statement once again; in compliance of the permission, so granted by the trial Court, her statements were recorded wherein she supported the prosecution story. Trial is still pending, however, learned trial Court, having observed that at first instance, present petitioner was declared hostile and she failed to support the prosecution story and at the second instance, she supported the prosecution story, therefore, either of the two statements is false. Consequently, he directed to initiate proceedings under Sections 193 and 195 IPC. Pursuant to the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nainital, a complaint was lodged, being as criminal case no. 446 of 2013, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate whereupon petitioner was summoned to face trial.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that trial is still pending, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that which part of the statement is correct or incorrect. Therefore, during the pendency of the trial, direction issued by the Special Sessions Judge to prosecute the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 193 and 195 IPC is premature and does not sustain in the eyes of law. I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED AGA seeks and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.