Sarup Singh vs Pela Ram and others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a revision petition filed by Sarup, Singh complainant directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, dated 23rd May, 1991. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial court closed the evidence of the prosecution.

The relevant facts for the purpose of the present revision petition are that a first information report had been recorded at Police Station Jatusana against the respondents with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge was framed against the respondents on 22nd July, 1986. The case was adjourned for evidence of the prosecution number of times. Certain witnesses were not present and their bailable warrants were issued.

On the date fixed namely 23rd May, 1991 when neither witnesses were present nor bailable warrants were received back executed for unexecuted, the learned trial court keeping in view the large number of adjournments already granted, closed the evidence of the prosecution.

Notice was issued to the respondents. Even an application has been filed by the respondents for vacation of the stay that has been granted but none appeared on the date when the case was listed for arguments. In these circumstances, the Court did not have advantage of hearing the respondents or their counsel.

The law is well settled that no person has a right to slow motion the process of law. As is apparent from the statements of facts given above, the first information report was recorded in November, 1985. The order passed by the learned trial court indicates that after the charge was framed in July, 1986, the case adjourned for not less than 23 times. The prosecution still was not able to produce and conclude its evidence. In normal circumstances when the bailable warrants had been issued it was in the fitness of things to procure the presence of the witnesses, but not in the facts of the present case. It is apparent that despite the summons and bailable warrants having been issued the same were received back executed or unexecuted. All good things had come to an end. The court indeed could not adjourn the case definitely when the prosecution was taking no effective steps to get the witnesses served or warrant executed. It is in this backdrop that the learned trial court rightly exercised his discretion and closed the evidence of the prosecution. The agony of the respondents in facing prolonged trial must be brought to an end at the earliest.

Reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the case Crl. Revision No. 482 of 1986 State through Balbir Singh v. Randhir Singh and others, decided on 8th January, 1988. Perusal of the facts clearly show that in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no inordinate delay on behalf of the prosecution in not producing the evidence, Therefore, in the facts of that case it had been concluded that if the witness did not appear on the date fixed, the Court should not have closed the evidence of the prosecution and an attempt should have been made to secure his presence. This is not so in the facts of the case in hand. In the present case innumerable adjournments numbering about two dozens have been granted. Again adjourning the case for the prosecution evidence would be patent injustice to the respondents, who are facing trial for the past about ten years. Consequently, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order.

For these reasons this revision petition fails and is dismissed.