Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
going through the record, we are of the considered
opinion that even if the question as to the jurisdiction
of the High Court need not be over-emphasized, the fact
remains that the Trial Court had given sound and tangible
reasons for rejecting the application for summoning of
the document(s) - moved at such a belated stage and
without any justification for such relief. The High Court
has completely glossed over this aspect in the impugned
judgment. The right to summon document(s), indeed, is
available but that has to be exercised when the trial is
in progress and not when the trial is completed,
including after the statement of accused under Section
313 of Criminal Procedure Code had been recorded. The
efficacy of the trial cannot be whittled down by such
belated application.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2021
MD. GHOUSEUDDIN Vs SYED RIAZUL HUSSAIN & ANR.
Dated: July 12, 2021.
Leave granted.
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order
dated 05.02.2019 passed by the High Court for the State
of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case No.
3297 of 2018 allowing the revisional application and
reversing the decision of the Trial Court in rejecting
the application for summoning of the document(s) moved by
the private respondent.
Two contentions have been raised before us.
The first is that the High Court has exceeded its
revisional jurisdiction as the order passed by the Trial
Court was an interlocutory order. On merits, it is
submitted that the High Court ought not to have reversed
the well-reasoned decision of the Trial Court. It ought
to have taken into account all relevant aspects,
including the fact that the trial had already completed
long back and, thereafter, accused was examined under
Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The application for
summoning the document(s) was moved only thereafter and
that too without laying proper foundation for grant of
such relief as claimed by the private respondent.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 relying on the
decision of this Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central
Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 14 SCC 809, would contend
that the order passed by the Trial Court was amenable to
the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. On merits,
learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the High
Court justly interfered with the order of the Trial Court
for reasons recorded in the penultimate paragraph of the
impugned judgment.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
going through the record, we are of the considered
opinion that even if the question as to the jurisdiction
of the High Court need not be over-emphasized, the fact
remains that the Trial Court had given sound and tangible
reasons for rejecting the application for summoning of
the document(s) - moved at such a belated stage and
without any justification for such relief. The High Court
has completely glossed over this aspect in the impugned
judgment. The right to summon document(s), indeed, is
available but that has to be exercised when the trial is
in progress and not when the trial is completed,
including after the statement of accused under Section
313 of Criminal Procedure Code had been recorded. The
efficacy of the trial cannot be whittled down by such
belated application.
Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside
and the order of the Trial Court is restored, rejecting
the application for summoning the document(s).
The trial be proceeded expeditiously and be concluded
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…...................J
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
…...................J
(SANJIV KHANNA )
New Delhi;
July 12, 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment