New Delhi, March 18 (IANS) A court here on Tuesday turned down activist Medha Patkar’s plea to introduce a new witness in her defamation case against Delhi LG V.K. Saxena.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Raghav Sharma of the Saket Courts said that Patkar’s application appeared to be a “deliberate attempt to delay the trial rather than a genuine necessity”.
“The present case has been pending for 24 years, and the complainant (Medha Patkar) has already examined all the witnesses initially listed at the time of filing the complaint. Notably, she had previously filed an application to summon additional witnesses u/s 254(2) Cr.PC, yet she did not mention the present witness in that application. If this witness was truly material to her case, she would have either included them in the original list of witnesses or, at the very least, mentioned them in the earlier application for additional witnesses. The fact that this witness has surfaced only now, after all of the complainant’s witnesses have been examined, raises serious doubts about the genuineness of this request,” the court said.
Further, it said that neither the complainant nor any of her witnesses have referred to this new witness at any stage of the trial.
“If this witness was genuinely relevant, his/her name or role in the case would have been mentioned at some point during the last 24 years of proceedings. The complete absence of any reference to this witness further suggests that it is an afterthought, possibly introduced to bolster the complainant’s case artificially,” the court said.
In support of her application, Medha Patkar, the leader of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA, contended that the complainant was well within her rights to examine any witness to prove her case under Section 254(1) Cr.PC and there is no embargo on her such right.
The complainant’s counsel argued that the provision is obligatory in nature and it leads to no discretion with the court as the word “shall” has been used in the provision.
On the other hand, LG Saxena’s counsel submitted that the application was filed by the complainant only with the objective of delaying the trial, adding that when all the witnesses cited by the complainant have already been examined, there was no reason as to why the name of the present witness was not mentioned in the list initially filed.
Further, it was argued that the application was filed to introduce a tutored witness as the present complaint was filed in the year 2000 and since then for 24 years the name of this witness never appeared anywhere, showing that the witness is now being deliberately induced for mala fide purpose and to delay the trial.
Dismissing the application, the court said that if the interpretation of Section 254(1) Cr.PC of the complainant’s counsel is accepted, there would be no end to the trial as both the complainant and accused would keep on calling and examining the witness.
“What would stop a complaint or accused from protracting the trial if the court would not have any discretion in calling and examination of the witness? Each time a last witness is examined by the complainant or accused, he/she might just ask for the examination of another witness under this provision and would keep the trial in perpetuity. This would be an absurdity and therefore can’t be the import of this provision (Section 254(1) Cr.PC),” it added.
Advocates Gajinder Kumar, Kiran Jai, Chandra Shekhar, Drishti, and Somya Arya represented LG Saxena before the Saket courts.
–IANS
pds/vd