SHETHNA, J. - (1.) FOLLOWING important questions of law are arising in this petition:- (1) Whether order passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application under Sec. 311 Cr. P. C. filed by the accused persons, to recall the witnesses for the purpose of further examination is an interlocutory order or not? (2) Whether, this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. against such interlocutory order when the Sessions Court has rejected the revision filed by the accused solely on the ground that no revision would be maintainable u/sec. 397 (2) Cr. P. C. ? (3) Whether this Court can entertain the petition against such interlocutory orders passed by the trial court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ?
(2.) THE present accused petitioners along with one more accused are facing trial for offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B I. P. C. of committing forgery and cheating the Government for lakhs of rupees way back in 1981 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI cases, Jodhpur. THE case is pending against them since 1982 before the Court at Jaipur which was later on transferred to Jodhpur. It is unfortunate that nearly a period of 20 years has passed after the commission of an offence and the case registered against them but same is yet not concluded for several reasons, even though the prosecution closed its evidence after examining as many as 25 witnesses who were effectively cross examined in detail by the counsel for the accused. The application dated 16. 1. 2001 was filed under Section 311 Cr. P. C. on behalf of the present accused petitioners before the trial court for recalling 3 witnesses namely, (1) Satish Chandra Kik, (2) Subash Chandra Mishra and (3) Satish Chandra Saxena P. W. 16, P. W. 17 and P. W. 19 respectively for the purpose of further cross-examination on the ground that by mistake, they were not properly cross-examined regarding the disputed documents. If the said request is not granted, then it will adversely affect the accused in their defence. The said application was straneously objected by learned public prosecutor before the trial court on the ground that by 16. 1. 2001, as many as 25 witnesses were examined and the aforesaid 3 witnesses were also cross-examined at great length by the learned counsel appearing for the accused and it is only with a view to delay the trial, which is pending before the trial court since 1982, this application is submitted. It was also objected on the ground that the intention of the learned counsel for the accused is to delay the proceedings on one or the other grounds and in the past also, time and again, number of revisions were filed by him on behalf of the accused which were also dismissed, therefore, to recall the witnesses in this case, would not be helpful to the Court to arrive at the just decision in the case. The Trial Court after considering the entire material on record came to the conclusion that all the aforesaid witnesses were cross examined in detail by the learned counsel for the accused and the application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. was submitted in the case only with an intention to delay the trial. The Trial Court also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell (1), cited by learned counsel for the petitioners and held that the facts of Rajendra Prasad's case (supra) have no relevance whatsoever in the instant case as the facts of that case were totally different than the facts of the present case and accordingly, the trial court dismissed the application u/sec. 311 Cr. P. C. on 7. 3. 2001. This order was challenged by the petitioners in revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 24. 4. 2001 only on the ground of its maintainability because according to him, the impugned order passed by the trial court was an interlocutory one and no revision would lie against such order as provided under Sec. 397 (2) Cr. P. C. For dismissing the revision petition on this ground, the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the following judgments of this Court:- (1) Ummed Singh vs. Devi Singh (2), and (2) Jarnail Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
(3.) THERE is a specific bar of second revision u/sec. 399 (3) Cr. P. C. , therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. before this Court and have prayed that the impugned order dated 7. 3. 2001 passed by the learned A. C. J. M. (CBI), Jodhpur in criminal case No. 9/99 as well as the order dated 24. 4. 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in criminal revision be quashed and set aside and the application filed by them u/s. 311 Cr. P. C. be allowed and the Trial Court be directed to recall the aforesaid 3 witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination. Learned counsel Mr. Dave for respondent CBI raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. on the ground that there is a specific bar of second revision petition under Section 399 (3) Cr. P. C. and with a view to circumvent that bar, the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , therefore, this Court should not entertain this petition. However, learned counsel Mr. Punia for the petitioners vehemently submitted that in view of the specific bar of second revision under Section 399 (3) Cr. P. C. , he had no alternative but to file this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court should entertain it because by rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. , the trial court has done great injustice to the accused. In support of his submission, learned counsel Mr. Punia has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another In my considered opinion, the object of criminal trial is to render prompt public justice, to punish the criminals and to see to it that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible before the memory of the witnesses fades out. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that a trend had developed to delay the trial by the accused on one or the other ground after they are out on bail so that ultimately, they are acquitted either by threatening or inducing the witnesses. Such practice was required to be curbed, therefore, with a view to ensure prompt public justice in the criminal trial, the Legislature in its wisdom introduced two major provisions in Cr. P. C. (1) Section 397 (2) under which revision against any interlocutory order passed in appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceedings was barred and (2) Section 399 (3) wherein finality is attached to the order passed by the revisional court and second revision at the instance of same party is barred. ;