Mohinder Singh Jagdev vs Delhi Administration and Another

Grover, J.—This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which shows how much delay takes place in he trial and disposal of criminal cases in the lower Courts owing to the default of the prosecution to put in the challan in time and to produce its evidence within a reasonable period.

The first information report in the present case was lodged on 19th December 1956 alleging the commission by the petitioner of certain offences under sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Pen 1 Code. The challan was put in nearly three years later, namely, on 20th October 195).

The charges were framed on 9th May 1960. A revision petition was taken to the Sessions Court against the order framing the charges. It is said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the charge u/s 420 could not have been framed but he dismissed the petition for revision on the ground that there was no Case for inter ference at that stage. Seventeen witnesses were examined by the prose cutton up to July 1963. From July 1983 to October adjournments were sought by the prosecution to produce more evidence. The Magistrate, however, closed the prosecution case on 7th November, 1963. The statement of the petitioner was then recorded u/s 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code and certain evidence was led in defence. On the 18th November 1963 the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector. moved an application that one N.D. Gupta be examined u/s 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the result of the commission which had been issued for the examination of a witness in Pakistan and another witness in the United Kingdom be awaited. This commission had to be executed u/s 508(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The present petition has been filed in this Court praying that the prosecution by delaying the production of its evidence is guilty of an abuse of the process of the Court and certain directions be given which are set out in paragraph 14 of the petition.

The comments of the learned Magistrate were invited and it is stated by him that so far as the issue of commission is concerned, that was done by an order dated 5th October, 1951. The commissions were returned by the Ministry of External Affairs as the interrogatories were not in duplicate. It is further stated by him that the application which had been filed by the Prosecuting Sub Inspector for the examination of N. D. Gupta u/s 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for awaiting the execution of the commission was not pressed by the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector on dates subsequent to 5th December 1963.

It is absolutely essential in such cases for the trial Magistrate not to allow so much latitude to the prosecution which leads almost to travesty of justice. The Magistrate was right in closing the prosecution case at an earlier date and the same order should be made now and no further opportunity or adjournment should have been granted to the prosecution for the matters covered by the application dated 18th November 1963. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case finally without waiting for the execution of the commission within one month from today. If the commission is exacted during this period, then naturally that evidence will be taken into consideration. The petition is consequently allowed to this extent.