1982 (1) TMI 215 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Affirms Broad Authority to Admit Witness Affidavits Post-Defense, Emphasizing Justice Over Procedure.

Gurdev Singh Versus State of Punjab

Gurdev Singh Versus State of Punjab - TMI Issues:- Application to produce affidavit of a witness at a late stage of trial- Whether evidence can be brought on record after the defense is closed- Interpretation of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureAnalysis:1. The petitioner was facing trial under the Opium Act for possession of opium. The prosecution requested to introduce an affidavit of a witness, Harpal Singh, from the office of the Chemical Examiner. This request was believed to be influenced by previous court decisions highlighting the importance of such link evidence for the prosecution. However, doubts were raised on the correctness of these decisions by another judge, leading to a larger bench referral that did not materialize due to implied overruling by a Division Bench in a subsequent case.2. The trial magistrate allowed the prosecution's application to introduce the affidavit, stating it was crucial for a just decision. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that new evidence should not be allowed after the defense is closed. Previous court decisions were cited to support this argument, emphasizing that the powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be exercised to the disadvantage of the accused once the defense has concluded.3. The petitioner relied on past judgments to assert that introducing evidence after the defense is closed would be prejudicial. However, the judge expressed reluctance to follow this precedent, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 311 and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, which grant wide powers to the court to ensure justice is served.4. The judge referred to a Supreme Court case, emphasizing the court's power to call witnesses at any stage for a just decision. While acknowledging limitations on introducing new evidence after the defense concludes, the judge highlighted the importance of upholding the interests of justice above all else.5. Ultimately, the judge held that the court's power to examine witnesses for a just decision, as provided by Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should not be restricted based on the stage of the trial. The impugned order allowing the introduction of the affidavit was deemed valid, and the petitioner's challenge was dismissed. The judgment emphasized the paramount importance of ensuring justice and following the Supreme Court's guidance on interpreting relevant legal provisions.