Arun Kumar Dey v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MCRC, 50458 of 2021, Judgment Date: Oct 21, 2021

Law laid down -

1. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C – The Section is in two parts. In the first part, the word “may” is employed whereas second part uses “shall”. Thus, first part gives pure discretion to the criminal court whereas second part makes it mandatory to summon the witness.

Second part of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C - The litmus test to exercise power under the second part aforesaid is whether it is essential to the just decision of a case to summon the witnesses. Whether new evidence is essential or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case which needs to be determined by the presiding Judge.

2. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.293 of Cr.P.C - As per the prosecution story, petitioner was trapped and his hands and pocket were washed in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink. Indisputably, the scientific expert as per Sec.293 Cr.P.C is not required to prove his scientific report by entering the witness box and marking the said report as an exhibit. However, petitioner’s prayer to summon him was rejected because in the application filed u/S.311, the petitioner has not given adequate reasons with accuracy and precision which necessitated summoning the expert witness.

3. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C - The power should be exercised very sparingly to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power cannot be exercised on mere asking or based on bald averments like “for lawful adjudication of the matter”. The Court below has taken a plausible view which is not shown to be illegal or suffering from any material irregularity. Interference is declined.

Arun Kumar Dey v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment