Jai Kumar Jain vs State of U.P.

S.K. Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Baghpat in criminal revision No. 216 of 1999 new number 36/01 Rajendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. and others whereby the order of acquittal of the revisionists dated 10.2.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in criminal case No. 4692 of 1995 State v. Jai Kumar and others has been set aside and the case has been remanded with the direction that the learned Magistrate should ensure the attendance of witnesses and decide the case on merit.

Briefly stated, the facts for the purpose of this revision are that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 10.2.1999 in the afoeresaid criminal case observed that repeated opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce its witnesses on that day also and adjournment application was made. There was no justification in allowing this application as many a times summons were issued to the witnesses, but none of them has been produced. On 23.1.1999 last opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce its witnesses. More than three years have elapsed since the charge was framed, therefore, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons.

Complainant of the case Rajendra Prasad Jain preferred the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was decided by I Additional Sessions Judge, Baghpat giving directions as aforesaid.

Learned Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the fact that three years had elapsed since the order of acquittal was passed.

Learned AGA supported the judgment.

The perusal of the record goes to show that after the case was remanded one alleged eyewitness namely Subodh Kumar has already been examined by the prosecution.

It also appears that on 10.2.1999 an application for adjournment was made on behalf of the first informant Rajendra Prasad Jain that due to his engagement in religious ceremonies of Punch Kalyanak Prathishthan he is not able to come before the Court till 22.2.1999. The learned Magistrate did not pass any order on this application. The perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate suggests that he had passed the order of acquittal keeping in view the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajdev Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1999 (39) ACC page 665. but this law was overruled by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State through C.B.I. v. Dr. Narayan woman Nerukar 2002 (45) ACC 657 (SC). wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court set aside its observations made in the case of Rajdev Sharma (supra).

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge did not commit any error in passing the impugned judgment and order. The perusal of the record does not suggest that the learned Magistrate took any forcible steps to procure the attendance of the witnesses. It is also not clear from the record that whether the witnesses were ever served with the summon issued by the Court and on the date fixed the complainant had made an application for adjournment for sufficient reasons.

The revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

The copy of the order and the record of the trial Court be sent back within a week.

Revision Dismissed.