2024 PCrLJ 2014
Summoning of witnesses---Scope---After completing the evidence of prosecution and statement of accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C, the prosecution filed an application for verification of the appointment orders of the applicant as teacher from Education Department---Such application was allowed being not opposed by applicant---Pursuant to it, a report was submitted by the Directorate of Schools Education (Primary)---According to that report, the appointment order of applicant was alleged to be fabricated---Applicant filed a similar application for production and verification of his appointment orders from the appointing authority, which was allowed---Pursuant to that order, a report was submitted on behalf of Secretary to Government, which report alleged that the appointment of the applicant for the post of Primary School Teacher was genuine whereas his appointment as High School Teacher was fake---In that backdrop, the applicant moved present application for summoning certain witnesses through Court, which was dismissed by the trial Court---Validity---Need to summon and examine new witnesses arose for the applicant when the trial Court initially granted the prosecution's application and subsequently approved the applicant's request for verification of the applicant's appointment order---Such process resulted in the submission of two separate, yet contradictory, verification reports---In the wake of that development, the applicant moved the Application under S.540 , Cr.P.C, for summoning witnesses---Salutary principle of criminal judicial proceedings is to uncover the truth and to reach a just conclusion, ensuring that an innocent individual is not punished due to technicalities, whether on his part or on the part of the court---Further, the criminal justice system is inquisitorial rather than adversarial---Thus, it falls upon the Court to arrive at a just decision in the case---Any evidence deemed essential for that purpose must be presented, though it remains open to challenge regarding its truthfulness through cross-examination---Perusal of the impugned order showed that it entirely focused on and evaluated the applicant's request to summon and re-examine the fifth witness but remained completely silent as regards the summoning of the other four witnesses---In the absence of assigning any reason, the impugned order appeared arbitrary and unjust.
0 Comments