- (1.) This petition has been filed seeking of quashing the order dated 19.1.2013 passed by Additional District and Session Judge-III, Gautam Budh Nagar whereby the application moved on behalf of petitioner No. 2 seeking to bring on record an order passed by the Apex Court, was rejected. It has also been prayed by the petitioner to direct the Court of revision to reconsider the petitioner's application in respect of bringing on record the judgment and order dated 12.12.2008 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. Record has been perused. It appears that on a complaint having been filed by opp. party No. 2 Rakesh Bala Aneja the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagar thought it fit to summon the petitioners to face the trial under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order the petitioners No. 1 and 2 preferred a revision in the Court of Sessions, the revision seems to have been admitted by the Court of In-charge Sessions Judge and the trial proceeding also were put in abeyance. It further transpires that during the course of hearing of the revision, an application dated 5.9.2012 on behalf of petitioner No. 2 Kailash Rani Dang was moved before the revisional Court alleging the suppression of some very relevant facts. The application which is Annexure-6 to the petition reveals that it was submitted before the Court that there was already in existence a litigation in between the parties and the Hon'ble Apex Court has also adjudicated upon the same vide its order dated 12.12.2008. It was this order passed by the Apex Court which was said to have been suppressed by the opp. party and without disclosing this fact the summoning order was said to have been procured from the magisterial Court. It was in this back ground that the certified copy of the Apex Court judgment was sought to be taken on record because of its relevant nexus with the proceedings in question. The aforesaid application was objected to by the opp. party on the ground that the petitioners/revisionist had no legal right to produce such a document and the same was inspired with the object of delaying the proceedings of the case. After hearing his parties the Court of revision passed an order which is almost cryptic in nature and the only thing observed by the revisional Court is that there does not seem to be any law or legal basis which may legitimize or justify the aforesaid Supreme Court's judgment to be brought on record. With that observation the application of the petitioners/revisionists was rejected.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the impugned order suffers from a patent error of law and also reflects a breach of judicial propriety in as much as the revisional Court has refused to take on record a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which had a direct relevance to the issues involved in the matter and was touching upon the same subject-matter and was also in between the common parties litigating in the trial Court. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to section 399 of Cr.P.C. and it has been emphasized that a bare reading of the aforesaid provision shall demonstrate that the powers to take additional evidence are sufficiently there with the Court of revision and are the same which the Court of appeal has. It has been argued that as the above power to take additional evidence by appellate Court is almost identical with that of revisional Court therefore, the observations of the Court that there is no law or legal basis which may legitimise the taking of any document on record flies in the face of law and is liable to be quashed. Further submission is that if the Hon'ble Apex Court has also had the occasion to adjudicate upon the same subject-matter or an identical matter or even if there has been an adjudication on some relevant aspect or relevant issues involved in the proceedings in question, the significance or relevance of the Apex Courts' judgment was demonstratively manifest and cannot be over emphasized. It has been submitted that the impugned order also reflects an act of impropriety as the Court below should not have refused to take on record the judgment of the Supreme Court.
(3.) The Court has perused the entire record alongwith the impugned order in the light of the submission made at the bar. Ordinarily the Court could have issued notice to the opp. party No. 2 and passed any order after giving him opportunity of hearing but adopting such a course would necessarily involve the staying of lower Court's proceedings which are going on against the petitioners. In the wake of heavy pendency in the Court, where the dockets of the pending cases are already bursting on their seams, if this Court at the time of issuing notice puts the operation of impugned order in abeyance, there is hardly any likelihood for this petition to get decided on merit in a measurable distance of time or in near future. Such a course shall be more detrimental to the cause of the opposite party and shall have very adversely affected the larger interest of the complainant. As the impugned order also reflects gross illegality which is palpable on the face of record, this Court deems it fit to decide this petition on the basis of the record with assistance of learned AGA. who is representing the State, respondent No. 1 and also after perusing the entire law on the point.;