V PADMAVATHI v. State Of Chhattisgarh

: Ms Pragya Shrivastava, Dy GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

24.09.2025

1. In the present case, interim order was passed on 11-09-2019, staying proceedings of the learned trial court. Thereafter, it was continued from time to time. On 04-09-2025, when the matter was listed for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant to pursue the present criminal revision, and it was ordered to be listed in the next week. The matter was again listed on 19- 09-2024 before this Court, and when it was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant, and the matter was passed over. Case was again listed before this Court for hearing on 24-09-2025, but no one appeared on behalf of the applicant on repeated calls to pursue the revision. 2 Crr 991 of 2019

2. Since the matter is of the year 2019, and the interim order passed on

11.09.2019 is being operated till date, this Court deems it appropriate to decide this revision by invoking the provisions of Section 444 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 403 of the CRPC). Though all the procedural laws have as its foundation the maxim “Audi Alteram Partem” and at all stages wherever the need be there are provisions for issuance of notice and making sure that the party may be heard before passing of any order, yet, as per the specific provisions of Section 444 of BNSS (Section 403 of the CRPC), it is clear that a party may or may not be heard, as the Court may decide while exercising its power of revision. Since no one appeared on behalf of the applicant on repeated occasions, this Court proceeds to decide the Criminal revision.

3. The provisions of Section 444 of BNSS (Section 403 of CRPC) do not violate the principles of natural justice. See “Mahabir Motor Co., Bhagalpur v. State of Bihar and Others” (AIR 1956 Pat. 437), “Sau. Ranjana Shivaji Rakhpasare v. Shivaji Bapu Rakhpasare and Another” (2004 Cri.L.J. 145), and “Panatar Arvindbhai Ratilal Vs State of Gujrat and others” (1991) 1 GLR451.

4. The applicant has filed the present Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “CRPC”), against the order dated 09-07-2019 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, in M.J.C. No. 18/2019, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of the CRPC has been rejected. 3 Crr 991 of 2019

5. The subject matter in brief is that the applicant is an accused in the Sessions Trial No. 293/2013, pending before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, for the offence under Section 302, and 307 of the IPC. During the trial, the applicant moved an application under Section 311 of the CRPC for recall of the witnesses for re-cross examination, which was rejected by the learned trial Court, and a warrant of arrest was issued against the applicant in his absence despite his making application for condonation of his non-appearance. The order of rejection of the application filed under Section 311 of the CRPC, and issuance of arrest warrant was challenged before this Court, in which the application of Section 311 of the CRPC was allowed, and permitted the witnesses for their re-cross examination; however, execution of the said arrest warrant was stayed for 06 weeks. On 25-06-2018, when the applicant appeared before the learned trial court, he was arrested and sent to jail. Thereafter, considering the entire episode, the applicant filed an application under Section 408 of the CRPC for transfer of the sessions trial to any other Court, which has been registered as M.J.C. No. 18/2019. In the proceedings of the application under Section 408 of CRPC, the applicant moved an application under Section 91 of the CRPC for calling of the complaint made by Dr. S.K. Bagh against the presiding officer of the Court, dated 08-04-2019. The application of Section 91 of CRPC filed by the applicant is rejected by the learned trial Court on 09-07-2019, which is under challenge in the present criminal revision.

6. Perused the documents annexed with the Criminal Revision, have gone through the pleadings, as well as the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, and heard learned State counsel. 4 Crr 991 of 2019

7. From perusal of the impugned order dated 09-07-2019, it transpires that in the application of Section 91 of CRPC, the applicant made averments that the witness Dr. S.K. Bagh had made a complaint against the presiding officer of the Court on 08-04-2019, which is necessary for a just decision of the transfer application. It is averred in the complaint that the presiding officer had pressurized the witness, Dr. S.K. Bagh, to give evidence in favour of the prosecution, or else he would be sent to jail. Therefore, the said complaint may be called for its consideration while considering the transfer application of the applicant. The copy of the application of Section 91 CRPC filed before the learned trial court is not annexed with the present criminal revision.

8. The learned trial court has considered that the complaint made by Dr. S.K. Bagh against the presiding officer of the Court is not relevant in the transfer petition because the complainant Dr. S.K. Bagh, is medical witness, and he cannot give other evidence of what he has done in the case. Therefore, there is no question of creating any pressure upon him to depose in favour of the prosecution. It was also considered that the alleged incident occurred with the applicant, and the complaint made by Dr. S.K. Bagh is entirely on different footing, and not connected with each other, and rejected the application.

9. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 91 (1) of the CRPC, which states as under:- Section 91 – Summons to produce document or other thing Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or 5 Crr 991 of 2019 officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

10. Section 91(1) of the CRPC empowers the Court or any officer in charge of a police station if the Court or officer in charge of the police station considers necessary that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CRPC by passing a reasoned order. In the present case, the learned trial court considered that the complaint made by Dr. S.K. Bagh has no relevance to the alleged incident that occurred with the applicant. The learned Trial court rightly considered that there is no question of creating any pressure upon the witness Dr. S.K. Bagh for giving evidence in favour of the prosecution because he is the medical witness and will give evidence whatever he has done in the case and cannot go beyond the documents. The grounds of transfer of the sessions case are different then the complaint made by Dr. S.K. Bagh, against the presiding officer of the Court. The learned trial court considered that the production of the document was not necessary or desirable in the case, which is within the discretion that was rightly exercised by it. It was the proceedings of the application of Section 408 of CRPC, for the transfer of the sessions case of the applicant from one Court to another.

11. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned, and the learned trial court rightly decided the application of the applicant filed under Section 91 of the CRPC. Hence the 6 Crr 991 of 2019 Criminal Revision is liable to be, and it is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

12. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned trial court for information and necessary proceedings. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE