- (1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate for the state.
(2.) THE revisiorial application is directed against the order dated 18th january, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, calcutta in connection with Complaint Case No. 1621 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below refused to admit a question put to the witness being the P. W. 1 which runs as follows, "do you knew they would not pay when you still supply goods".
(3.) IT is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the learned Court below by passing an elaborate order refused to record the question and thereby violated the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1 : 2001 C cr LR (SC) 322. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its three-Judges Bench decision took into consideration about archaic practice being followed in the lower Courts where elaborate and lengthy arguments are advanced before any evidence is admitted. The resultant delay in conclusion of trial was taken serious note by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court prescribed a procedure about admission of evidence and the same Is set out below : "it is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fallout of the above practice is this : Suppose the trial Court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial Court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial Court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realized through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. ";