Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Gupta @ Manoj Kr. Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 17 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:11538)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.646 of 2025
------
Manoj Kumar Gupta @ Manoj Kr. Gupta, aged about 52 years, son
of Late Daya Shankar Prasad Gupta, Resident of 3/13, Nav Lakha
Apartment, F. Road, Kogal Nagar, Sonari, P.O. and P.S.- Sonari,
Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer to quash the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.477 of
2019 arising out of Sonari P.S. Case No.120 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.1290 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned trial court allowed the
petition filed by the prosecution to examine the seizure list witnesses as well as
to permit the prosecution to exhibit materials produced by the prosecution in
the court.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is an accused facing the
charge involving the offences punishable Sections 302, 307, 324, 326 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial
1 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:11538)
No.477 of 2019 of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII,
Jamshedpur. On 11.02.2025, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. The
learned A.P.P. filed a petition to examine two seizure witnesses; being
Constable-Rakesh Kumar Pathak and Constable- Ashwani Kumar Mahto. They
were present in the court and their attendance was filed and they also
produced the material exhibits of the case, in the court. The prayer was
allowed. The prosecution was permitted to examine the said two witnesses on
15.02.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the witnesses
sought to be examined, has not been mentioned in the column relating to the
witnesses to be examined; in the charge-sheet. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits
that the undisputed fact remains that the said two witnesses sought to be
examined by the prosecution are the seizure witnesses. The copy of the seizure
list has been supplied to the petitioner and except the factum of the seizure, the
said two witnesses are not going to state about any material particulars of the
case. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that examination
of the said two witnesses, sought to be examined by the prosecution, is
essential for the just decision of the case. It is next submitted that thus the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur has not committed any
illegality in allowing the petition of the prosecution in Sessions Trial No.477 of
2 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:11538)
2019. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be
dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that it is a settled principle of law that the object behind vesting wide
discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to a court is that there may not
be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the
valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the
witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is, whether the
evidence sought to be produced is essential to the just decision of the case. The
Section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, as has been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Another reported in (2011) 8 SCC 136.
7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that
the two witnesses whose examination was permitted by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur are undisputedly the witnesses of the seizure.
They produced the material exhibit of the case in the court. The undisputed fact
also remains that their examination is required for the just decision of the case.
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no
illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII,
Jamshedpur in passing the order dated 11.02.2025 in Sessions Trial No.477 of
2019 arising out of Sonari P.S. Case No.120 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.1290 of 2019 by allowing examination of the two witnesses when
prosecution evidence is yet to be closed.
3 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:11538)
9. Accordingly, the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.477 of 2019
arising out of Sonari P.S. Case No.120 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.1290 of 2019 does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its
power under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 17th of April, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
4 Cr. M.P. No.646 of 2025
[ad_1]
Source link