Mohinder Singh vs Jaswir Singh

S.C. Datta, J.

This revision petition is directed against order dated 11.7.1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, whereby the accused persons were acquitted.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on a written complaint lodged by Shri Mohinder Singh, a case under sections 380/342 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station Division, Amritsar against the accused persons. The allegations against the accused persons are that they had in connivance with Surinder Singh son of Roshan Lal, who is nephew of the complainant, stole from the godown of the complainant wax worth Rs. 70,000/80,000/ and kept them in their custody. On the basis of this complaint, a case was registered and it was investigated. During the course of investigation 16 bags of wax were recovered from accused Jasbir Singh and 8 bags of wax were recovered from accused Harbhajan Singh. The articles were seized under a seizure list. On completion of the investigation, the challan has been submitted.

A prima facie case having been established, charge under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code had been framed against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined four witnesses in all and the prosecution having failed to produce the remaining witnesses in spite of opportunities being given by the court, the learned Magistrate was pleased to close the evidence of the prosecution and thereafter recorded an order of acquittal.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate, the de facto complainant has come in revision.

The petitioner submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar requesting that an appeal against the acquittal order dated 11.7.1986 be filed, but it was declined. Thereupon, the de facto complainant has filed this petition. It is contended that the learned Magistrate instead of recording an order of acquittal for nonproduction of the remaining prosecution witnesses ought to have exhausted the procedure for summoning the remaining witnesses of the prosecution by issuing nonbailable warrants. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that his petition be allowed and the order of acquittal be set aside and the learned Magistrate be directed to summon the remaining prosecution witnesses.

It appears that the charge against the accused persons was framed as early as on 18.2.1983 and the order of acquittal was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 11.7.1986. It appear further from the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 11.7.1986 that as many as 29 opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce its witnesses, but the prosecution, for the reasons best known to it, did not produce the witnesses. Learned Magistrate observed that the accused persons are attending the Court regularly for the last 41/2 years since the registration of the case by the complainant. Learned Magistrate noticed that the witnesses to the recovery have not been examined nor has the F.I.R. been proved by the prosecution witnesses in spite of numerous opportunities being given to the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the learned Magistrate had, in my view, no other alternative but to close the prosecution evidence and to record an order of acquittal. Here in this Court also, the matter is pending since November, 1986 and this petition could be heard only on April 27, 1995 and the matter remained pending for the last about 9 years. The total period for which the matter remained pending is for about 14 years. The learned lawyer for the petitioner was duly informed of the date, but none has put in appearance on his behalf.

Having considered all the facts and circumstances it is felt that no useful purpose would be served by setting aside the order of acquittal and remitting the case back to the learned Magistrate for summoning the remaining prosecution witnesses. In that view of the matter, I think the revision petition cannot be sustained. Hence, it is rejected.