Mahendra Kumar and Others vs The State of Raj. and Another

Hon''ble Mrs. Nisha Gupta, J.—This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Tack), Balotra whereby the application u/s 311 Cr. P.C. filed by the complainant has been allowed. The contentions of the present petitioner are that they are facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Charges have been framed against the present petitioners on 21.2.2011. Thereafter, the witnesses including witness no. 10 Hadmat Singh have been called for. In spite of 25 occasions, this witness-Hadmat has not appeared before the court below and the trial court has closed the prosecution evidence on 15.5.2012 and the matter was posted on 21.5.2012 for recording the statements u/s 313, Cr. P.C. but the same could not be recorded. On the next date of hearing, the complainant moved an application for summoning the witness Hadmat Singh and the learned trial court, without appreciating the facts that on previous dates, 25 opportunities have been given to produce this witness, again allowed the application filed u/s 311, Cr. P.C. which is against the settled proposition of law. The petitioners are facing trial since long and they are being harassed.

Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that the order of the trial court is very specific one. Only fixed date has been given to produce the witness and no harassment could be caused to the petitioners by calling a witness only for a fixed date.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order.

Having considered the facts of the case, the learned court below has ordered that the witness Hadmat Singh be produced on a fixed date and it has been specifically ordered that if on the particular date, the witness will not turn up, then the prosecution evidence would be deemed to be closed.

Looking at the above, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 18.9.2012 the date which has been fixed by the court below, the witness could not be examined as this revision petition is pending before this Court and the next date is 20.10.2012. the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity but it is made clear that on 20.1.2012 the witness should be examined and no further opportunity should be given to the prosecution or the complainant to produce the witness as ample time has already been given to the prosecution. With the above observation this revision petition is hereby dismissed.