MP High Court in Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State of M.P, Gwalior bench directs the State Authorities to look into the conduct of a Special State Prosecutors for not cooperating with the trial court in recording testimony of a witness. The court also directed the authorities to enquire if her contribution on the post would be in the justice or not.
The Applicant applied for bail U/S 439 CRPC, on the ground of delay in trial. The Court observed that the applicant was adopting delaying tactics to prolong the proceedings on examining the order sheets of the Lower Court and was hand in gloves with the Special Public Prosecutor:
It is clear from the order-sheets that the defence counsel is also adopting delaying tactics and unfortunately it appears that the Special Public Prosecutor has also joined hands with the Defence Counsel. On 03.03. 2022 when two witness, namely, Anil Sharma and Subedar Khan were present and the cross-examination of Anil Sharma was being deferred only at the request of the counsel for the defence, then what was the hitch before the Special Public Prosecutor in not getting the examination-in-chief of another witness Subedar Khan recorded, is beyond the understanding of this Court. From order dated 03.03.2022, it is clear that at least on two occasions the Trail Court had requested the Special Public Prosecutor to get the examination-in-chief of Subedar Khan recorded, but she refused to do so.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed:
The Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Department, State of M.P., Bhopal and the District Magistrate Bhind are directed to look into the conduct as this conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor conduct cannot be appreciated and are directed to look into the conduct of Smt. Hemlata Arya, Special Public Prosecutor, in not cooperating with the Trial Court for recording of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness Subedar Khan. The authorities are directed to review as to weather the continuation of Smt. Hemlata Aryaas Special Public Prosecutor will be in the interest of Justice or Not? However, it is directed that the present case be immediately withdrawn from the Special Public Prosecutor.
The counsel for the accused submitted that since the arguing counsel is busy in another court, Therefore, the cross-examination may be deferred for some time. The Special Public Prosecutor was directed to get the examination-in-chief of another witness Subedar Khan recorded, but she refused to get her examination-in-chief recorded on the ground that unless and until the prosecution witness Anil Sharma is Cross-examined by the counsel for the accused, she would not the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness Subedar Khan.
The order sheets make it clear that the counsel for the applicant is also adopting all sorts of delaying tactics to avoid cross-examination of the witness, no case is made out for grant of bail, under these circumstances.
The bail application was rejected and accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
The Court held that the same was liable to be rejected as the applicant himself was to be blamed for the delay, with regard to the bail application.
The counsel for the accused submitted that since the arguing counsel is busy in another court, therefore, the cross-examination may be deferred for some time.