Charan Singh vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the recording of evidence is a crucial aspect of a trial. While the applicant is free to produce his witness(es), if a witness is present in court, the court is generally duty-bound to record the evidence unless there are cogent reasons for not doing so. Considering the entirety of the case and the applicant's request, the Court granted the applicant 30 days' time to produce his witness before the concerned court. The applicant is required to move an application for fixing a date within 10 days from the order date. The court concerned shall then fix a date for recording the defense evidence, which must not fall beyond 30 days from the date of the application. The Court cautioned that in case of default, the court below would be free to proceed in accordance with law. The observations made were explicitly stated to have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Facts

The applicant, Charan Singh, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Allahabad High Court. The applicant sought to quash an order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Jhansi. This order rejected the applicant's application to produce a defense witness. The original case is GST No. 89 of 2003, State vs. Charan Singh, arising from Case Crime No. 174 of 2002, under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, Police Station Sakrar, District Jhansi. The applicant's grievance was that his application for recording the defense witness's statement was rejected, despite the witness being present, due to some inconvenience. The applicant requested reasonable time to record the witness's statement to avoid prejudice to the defense.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Special Judge erred in rejecting the application for producing a defense witness, thereby causing prejudice to the applicant's right to a fair trial, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? The applicant argued that the rejection of his application to produce a defense witness, despite the witness's presence, was an error. He contended that due to unforeseen inconvenience, the witness's statement could not be recorded on that date. Granting a reasonable time for recording the statement would prevent prejudice to the defense and ensure a fair trial. The applicant assured that the liberty would not be misused. The State, represented by the learned A.G.A., did not appear to have made specific arguments against the applicant's plea for producing the witness. The judgment notes that the learned A.G.A. was heard, but no specific counter-arguments are recorded.