Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 826 (RAJ)

Ganeshi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

1996-08-03

Y.R.MEENA

body1996
JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, it has been prayed that proceedings in Cr. Case No. 38/87 be quashed. 2. The incident took place as back as on 22.7.77 and petitioner is facing trial till today. No delay in the proceedings on account of the petitioner. On 27.9.95, the petitioner has raised the objection that it is a summary trial case, therefore, the then presiding officer could not pronounce the judgment on relying on the statements of witnesses which are recorded by his predecessor. Considering his submissions, the impugned order dated 4.10.95 has been passed wherein the decision has been taken that let there be a denovo trial. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the denovo trial on the ground of delay. In the petition, it is also clarified that the delay is not on account of fault of petitioner, therefore, instead of denovo trial, the proceedings be quashed. 4. I have perused the record of trial court. The facts stated are not in dispute the incident took place as back as in 1977. The case is summary trial and petitioner appeared regularly since the case filed in court i.e. from 1978 onwards. All the 29 witnesses have been examined by the predecessor of the Presiding Officer of court on 27.9.95. There is no dispute on the issue that in case of summary trial, if the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate shall record the substance of the evidence and a judgment containing a brief statement of the reasons for the finding, he pronounce the judgment. In the case in hand, all the 29 witnesses have been examined and now the Magistrate realise his mistake and want to denovo trial. The petitioner already suffered mental agony from 1977 onwards by facing the criminal trial. It is also some sort of punishment and after suffering for about 19 years, there is no justification to upheld the view of the Magistrate, for of fault of petitioner, why the petitioner should again face denovo trial. Therefore, in the interest of Justice, instead of denovo trial, I quash the proceedings of Cr. Case No. 38/87. 5. The petition is allowed accordingly.Petition Allowed. *******