AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—In Criminal Petition No. 599/2013, petitioner (the younger brother of first informant) had sought for transfer of case, alleging that the Presiding Officer has been hastening the trial. I have heard learned counsel for parties.
This court in Criminal Petition No. 1187/2012 dated 08.03.2012, had directed trial court to decide the case on merits within four months from 08.03.2012. For several reasons, the case could not be decided. Thereafter, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 612/2012 dated 11.01.2013, this court extended time for decision of case on merits till 28.02.2013. The time extended in Criminal Revision Petition No. 612/2012 dated 11.01.2013 has elapsed. The case is set down for examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court having regard to directions given by this court in the aforestated petitions has shown inclination to dispose of the case within aforestated time, however trial court could not dispose of the case. In the circumstances, no motive can be attributed to the Presiding Officer. There are no grounds made out to transfer the case.
Criminal Petition No. 600/2013 is also filed by PW 2 (the younger brother of the first informant. At the inception, case was being conducted by regular Public Prosecutor. At the instance of first informant, Special Public Prosecutor was appointed. PW 7 & PW 8 (practicing advocates), who drafted sale deed (Ex. P.16) alleged to have been forged by accused were examined and discharged when the case was conducted by regular Public Prosecutor. After Special Public Prosecutor took over charge of the case, he found that there was need for further examination of PW 7 & PW 8. Therefore, Special Public Prosecutor had made an application to recall PW 7 & PW 8. The trial court accepted the application and issued summons to PW 7 & PW 8. However, summons was not served on PW 7 & PW 8. Therefore, trial court dropped PW 7 & PW 8. In the circumstances, the petitioner is before this court.
The Special Public Prosecutor has been in-charge of the case. He has not challenged the impugned order, yet this court has to take notice of certain developments, which had taken place during pendency of case.
During pendency of case, after examination-in-chief of first informant, he was murdered when he had gone to attend the court at Anekal. The murder, as per prosecution, had taken place within broad day light. Therefore, the first informant was not available for cross-examination. Thereafter, the petitioner herein, who is the younger brother of first informant was examined as PW 2. It is the grievance of PW 2 that trial court having accepted the application of Special Public Prosecutor for further examination of PW 7 & PW 8 should not have abruptly closed the case, because summons was not served on PW 7 & PW 8. PW 7 & PW 8 are practicing advocates. The sale deed (Ex. P16) drafted by PW 7 & PW 8 is alleged to have been forged by the accused. In the circumstances, trial court should have taken coercive steps to secure PW 7 & PW 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on locus standi of petitioner, I direct trial court to secure PW 7 & PW 8 by taking coercive steps and permit Special Public Prosecutor to further examine them.
The Special Public Prosecutor had also sought for summons to CW 13 namely Madeshwaran, the Manager of Colliers International Private Limited. The trial court after going through investigation records and also on consideration of evidence already adduced by prosecution has held that his evidence is not relevant. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, as it relates to rejection of request for examination of CW 13.
In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
Criminal Petition No. 599/2013 is dismissed.
The trial court shall secure PW 7 & PW 8 by taking coercive steps and decide the case as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case. Criminal Petition No. 600/2013 is accordingly disposed of.
Sri MT. Nanaiah, learned senior counsel for respondents 2 & 3 would submit that a time frame may be fixed for disposal of case on merits.
This court in Criminal Petition No. 1187/2012 dated 08.03.2012, had directed trial court to decide the case on merits within four months from 08.03.2012. For several reasons, the case could not be decided. Thereafter, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 612/2012 dated 11.01.2013, this court extended time for decision of case till 28.02.2013. The time extended in Criminal Revision Petition No. 612/2012 dated 11.01.2013 has elapsed. In spite of directions given by this court, trial court has not been able to adhere to directions given by this court for several reasons, including non-availability of witnesses and failure of prosecution to secure witnesses. Therefore, I am of the opinion that further direction for time bound disposal can be pleaded as an excuse to close the case, without examination of PW 7 & PW 8. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to fix a time frame for decision of case on merits, however, I direct trial court to decide the case on merits as expeditiously as possible for which both parties shall extend their co-operation.