Skip to content


S.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ391
AppellantS.S. Chaudhary
RespondentState of Uttar Pradesh
Excerpt:
- - n khanna clearly established that khanna had participated in the offence and this being so unless pardpn was granted to him under section 306/307 cr. this is precisely what the sessions judge has done, and as such, the order does riot suffer from any infirmity......who is not an accused at the trial. it does not make it incumbent on the court to postpone the trial and proceed against the person concerned in the same trial. this is precisely what the sessions judge has done, and as such, the order does riot suffer from any infirmity. nor has the judge expressed any opinion as to whether sri j. n. khanna can be proceeded against or not, as he has postponed the decision of this issue at a later point of lime. this is another consideration for not interfering with the order. as regards the contention that the evidence of j. n. khanna is inadmissible and cannot be. taken into account unless pardon is granted to him, this too does not appear to be correct. no provision of the evidence act has been brought to our notice making j. n. khanna an.....
Judgment:

C.S.P. Singh, J.

1. The petitioner is standing trial before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, being criminal trial No. 3/74 of 1975, for offences Under Section 120-B/204/467/ 477-A/466/409 IPC and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. During the course of. trial the prosecution examined one J. N. Khanna as P. W. 7. According to the petitioner the statement made by J. N. Khanna was self incriminatory, and had the effect of placing him in a position of an accused in the case. On his statement being recorded, an application was moved by the petitioner for postponing the trial and arraigning J. N. Khanna, P. W. as a co-accused Under Section 319 Cr.PC The Sessions Judge by his order dated 27-10-1975 dismissed the application. The petitioner has impugned this order.

2. Counsel for the petitoner contended that the statement of J. N Khanna clearly established that Khanna had participated in the offence and this being so unless pardpn was granted to him Under Section 306/307 Cr.PC his evidence was not admissible, and the trial could not proceed till such time that J. N. Khanna was made an accused Under Section 319 Cr, P. C.

3. We are unable to accept these contentions. Section 319 Cr.PC gives a discretion to a Court to proceed against a person, who is not an accused at the trial. It does not make it incumbent on the Court to postpone the trial and proceed against the person concerned in the same trial. This is precisely what the Sessions Judge has done, and as such, the order does riot suffer from any infirmity. Nor has the Judge expressed any opinion as to whether Sri J. N. Khanna can be proceeded against or not, as he has postponed the decision of this issue at a later point of lime. This is another consideration for not interfering with the order. As regards the contention that the evidence of J. N. Khanna is inadmissible and cannot be. taken into account unless pardon is granted to him, this too does not appear to be correct. No provision of the Evidence Act has been brought to our notice making J. N. Khanna an incompetent witness at the trial. It may be that in case the evidence of J. N. Khanna implicates him in the offences, his evidence may be of doubtful probative value; but it cannot be said as a matter of law that the evidence is inadmissible. Reliance on Sections 306 and 307 Cr.PC is also out of context. Sections 306 and 307 Cr.PC have been enacted to facilitate the Court in obtaining evidence, when such evidence is not forthcoming by granting pardon. It cannot be appropriately applied to cases where the witness gives evidence voluntarily, for in that case, occasion for granting pardon does not arise, as the evidence has already become available to. Court. For all these reasons the contentions raised have to be rejected.

4. The petition fails and is dismissed. The stay order dated 24-11-1975 is discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //