AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 260 wordsSabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 26.8.2013 (Annexure P-4) whereby evidence of the prosecution was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only investigating officer remains to be examined in this case and the Trial Court had erred in closing the evidence of the prosecution. Non-examination of the investigating officer shall cause serious prejudice to the petitioner-complainant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecution had colluded with the accused.
Impugned order dated 26.8.2013 (Annexure P-4) reads as under:-
No PW is present or served. Perusal of the file reveals that charge in this case was framed on 18.4.12 and since then prosecution has availed 18 effective opportunities including the last opportunity. Even this time summons were ordered to be sent through concerned SSP as it was last opportunity. Ld. APP prayed for adjournment which is highly opposed by Ld. defence counsel. The adjournment is not justified. In these circumstances, evidence of the prosecution is closed by order.
To come up on 7.9.13 for statement of the accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Thus, in the present case, prosecution had availed 18 effective opportunities to conclude its evidence. Last opportunity was granted to the prosecution to conclude its evidence and the summons were ordered to be sent through Senior Superintendent of Police. Despite that prosecution had failed to examine any witness on 26.8.2013 and, consequently, the Trial Court rightly closed the evidence of prosecution by order.
No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.