BIPIN SHANTILALPANCHAL versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 22-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
-I 
BIPIN SHANTILALPANCHAL 
A 
v. 
+ 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
FEBRUf.RY 22, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETIIl AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial : 
Trial-Completion of-Undue delay in-Expeditious disposal of cases-
Procedure to be followed-Held: It is an an::haic practice <>f not proceeding c 
further during the evidence-taking stage without passing order on the objection 
reganling admissibility of evidence-The objected document or oral evidence 
should be marked as an exhibit or recorded-At the final stage if the objection 
is sustainable such evidence be excluded from consideration-However, if the 
-y 
objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, such objection has 
to be aecided before proceeding further-Trial court to follow the above 
D 
procedure whenever an objection is raised reganling admissibility of any 
material or item of oral evidence-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Ss. 268 
and 309. 
The appellant-accused was arrested for offences under the Narcotic 
E 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The trial court could not pro-
ceed with the trial expeditiously due to its interlocutory orders being 
challenged in the High Court. The appellant's bail application was re-
jected by the High Court even though bail was sought on the ground of 
undue delay in the completion of the trial. The appellant's Special Leave 
' 
Petition was disposed of by this Court with the direction that the trial 
F 
court should close the trial within six months. As the trial could not be 
completed within six months the respondent had liled the present applies· 
ti on seeking further six month's time to complete the trial. 
Disposing of the application, the Court 
G 
-
HELD : 1. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collect-
ing stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any 
material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing 
__.... 
order on such objection. (33-F] 
· 2. Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage 
H 
29 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the 
trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected 
document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part 
of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last 
stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the 
objection so realised is sustainable, the judge or magistrate can keep such 
evidence excluded from consideration. There is no illegality in adopting 
such a course. However, if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp 
duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceed-
ing further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above could 
be followed. (34-C-D] 
3. The above said procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. 
First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, 
would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court 
can continue to examine the witnesses. lbe witnesses need not wait for 
long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same ' 
objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against 
the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the 
view taken by the trial court regarding the objection, without bothering 
to remit the case to the trial again for fresh disposal. This measure would 
not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add 
to their misery or expenses. Trial court shall follow this procedure when-
ever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or 
any item of oral evidence. [34-E-F; G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE ruRISDICTION : Criminal Miscellaneous 
Petition No. 862 of 2001. 
IN 
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 223 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.1999 in Criminal Misc. 
Application No. 2898 of 1999 of the High Court of Gujarat at Aharnadabad. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, if.A. Raichura, Saroj H. 
Raichura, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Sunita Hazarika, Ashok Srivastava, B.K. 
Prasad, P. Parmeswaran for the appearing parties. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.S. PANCHAL v. STATE [THOMAS, J.] 
31 
THOMAS, J. This is yet another opportunity to infonn the trial courts 
A 
+ 
that despite the procedural lrammels and vocati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.