Essential Evidence Cannot Be Shut Out Merely On Grounds Of Delay Or Laches, But Right Of Accused To Expeditious Trial Paramount: Delhi High Court
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court delved into the balance between the right of an accused to an expeditious trial and the scope of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in recalling witnesses. The Court highlighted the criticality of essential evidence for a just decision while underscoring the accused’s right to a speedy conclusion of the trial.
Facts and Issues:
The crux of the petitions was the trial court’s refusal to allow the petitioner to recall himself as a witness for introducing previous court pleadings and documents related to the accused. This refusal was challenged under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., alleging the trial court’s decision impaired a fair adjudication.
Detailed Court Assessment:
Scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C.: The Court emphasized the provision’s purpose to discover the truth and ensure justice, stressing its discretionary nature and the need for strong and valid reasons for witness recall.
Importance of Timely Application: The Court noted the petitioner’s delay in filing the application for recall without any justification, highlighting that such delays could burden the accused with continued stigma and embarrassment.
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act: Acknowledging the quasi-civil nature of offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Court indicated a stricter approach in allowing belated applications by the complainant.
Rights of the Accused: The Court emphasized the accused’s right to a swift trial, particularly in cheque bouncing cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, known for their prolonged proceedings.
Earlier Judgments Referenced: The Court referred to various precedents, including Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and their cautious exercise.
Decision: The petitions were dismissed for lacking merit, with the High Court upholding the trial court’s order. The Court clarified that the petitioner could rely on a certified copy of the Court’s previous order but underscored the non-permissibility of introducing evidence at a belated stage in the interest of a fair and expeditious trial.
Date of Decision: 08-04-2024
Rahul Darbari v. Arun Kumar Khobragade & Ors. |
