Trial Court’s Order Dismissing Application Of Accused Seeking Summons To Witnesses Not Interlocutory Order: Tripura HC
The Tripura High Court said that the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application of the accused seeking summoning of witnesses is not an interlocutory order, rather a final order by which the right of the accused to adduce further evidence is finally closed.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Revision Petition filed by an accused against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
A Single Bench of Justice Biswajit Palit remarked, “… it appears to me that by the said petition, the Learned Trial Court below dismissed the prayer of the accused person to adduce defence witness as the accused petitioner at time of filling of list of witness on 24.01.2024 did not submit the names of those persons to the Court. So, Learned Counsel closed the scope for adducing further evidence and fixed the case for hearing of argument. I have gone through the provision of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. After elaborate hearing of argument of both the sides and also keeping it in mind the principles of the aforesaid citations laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in my considered view, the order dated 07.03.2024 is not an interlocutory order rather it is a final order by which the further right of the accused to adduce further evidence has been finally closed by the Learned Trial Court below for which the revision petitioner is entitled to prefer revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.”
Advocate B. Banerjee appeared for the petitioner while Public Prosecutor Raju Datta appeared for the respondent.
In this case, the petitioner submitted one petition before the Trial Court, praying for issuing summons upon two witnesses for their examination in support of his defence for proper adjudication of the case. However, the court dismissed the said petition. In support of his defence, the petitioner/accused adduced four witnesses who were already been examined but the court did not consider his application and rejected the same. It fixed the case for hearing of arguments.
The counsel for the respondent submitted at the time of argument, that the revision petition was not maintainable as the petitioner challenged an interlocutory order against which no revision lies in view of Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and urged for dismissal of the same.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “Although it was the duty of the accused petitioner to submit the detailed list of witnesses at the time of submission before the Learned Trial Court below however, for proper adjudication of this case in my considered view, one opportunity should be given to the petitioner to take steps for issuing summons upon those witness as mentioned in his petition.”
The Court, therefore, imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the accused petitioner and directed that in the event of deposit of cost, the Trial Court shall issue summons upon the witnesses for their examination on behalf of the accused as a defence and such opportunity would be given only for one time to the accused to adduce those witnesses.
“If the accused petitioner fails to adduce those witnesses before the Court then he shall have no liberty to apply for fresh summons to the Learned Court below and the entire cost of the witnesses would be borne by the accused-petitioner. Since the case is at the stage of hearing of argument so all efforts should be made by the Learned Trial Court below to dispose the case within a period of 2(two) months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment/order”, it further ordered.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the revision petition.
Cause Title- Arjun Debbarma v. The State of Tripura
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates B. Banerjee and R. Majumder.
Respondent: PP Raju Datta
