Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 1375 (RAJ)

Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan

1997-11-20

ARUN MADAN

body1997
Honble MADAN, J.–From the perusal of the transfer application, it is apparent that in pursuance of the directions of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 283/97 in the interest of justice the petitioner was given two opportunities to produce all his relevant evidence in defence before the trial Court which he intended to examine in support of his case. The learned Magistrate in compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Court directed the accused petitioner to complete all his evidence in compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, but which evidently he failed to comply with. On 13.12.96, instead of producing the evidence in support of his case, the petitioner with a view to circumvent the aforesaid directions of this Court did not produce the evidence and instead moved an appli- cation under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for producing the witnesses in his defence as so stated in para 3 of this transfer application. In the said application the names of atleast 10 witnesses were mentioned and it was prayed that they may be summoned through the process of the Court. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court on the same day i.e. 13.12.96 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the application on flimsy and arbitrary grounds without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to furnish fresh addresses of the persons named as defence witnesses. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge Sikar who dismissed the same by speaking order on merits vide its order dated 20.12.96 and against the said order the petitioner yet not being satisfied came to file S.B. Misc. Petition No. 283/97 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before this Court. The said petition was decided and finally disposed of by this Court vide dated 28.5.97 with the following directions:- ``Therefore, in the interest of justice and to enable the accused/peti- tioner to produce his evidence in defence, this court orders u/S. 482 R.W. Sec. 483 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner shall be given two opportunities to produce all his witnesses which he intends to examine in his defence and in order to enable him to produce the witnesses, helearned Magistrate shall issue summons and handover such summons to the counsel for the petitioner for service. The petitioner shall be responsible to get such summons served upon his witnesses. No opportunity on the ground that witnesses could not be served or that the witnesses declined to accompany him would be allowed. (2). Inspite of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the petitioner has not pro- duced all the relevant evidence of the defence witnesses before the trial Court as cited by him in his earliest application moved before the trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court gave atleast two opportunities to the petitioner to lead his evidence in defence i.e. 20.6.97 and 21.6.97 but the petitioner failed to produce all the evidence or to take the witnesses alongwith him on the said dates. From the perusal of the order-sheet which has been shown to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing of this petition, it is apparent that the trial court had issued summons to all the witnesses and directed them to be present before the said Court on 20.6.97 and remaining evidence was to be completed on 21.6.97 and all the summons were given to the counsel for the petitioner for effec- ting the Dasti service on the said witnesses. As per the aforesaid directions, the petitioner was responsible to get the service of summons duly served upon his witnesses but the petitioner failed to comply with the said directions for the reasons best known to him. (3). Thereafter, petitioner moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge Sikar by making all frivolous allegations against the Presiding Officer which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 4.11.97. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this transfer application. (4). On 11.7.97, the petitioner was given an opportunity to examine the remaining evidence and he had examined one Jagdish Prasad as witness and the petitioner had produced summons for remaining witnesses and the case was adjourned for 12.7.97. On the said date the trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner and proceeded with the matter for final disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is preferring criminal miscellaneous petition separately before this Court. (5). On the said date the trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner and proceeded with the matter for final disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is preferring criminal miscellaneous petition separately before this Court. (5). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the impugned-order dated 4.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sikar rejecting the transfer application of the petitioner. (6). The allegations which the petitioner has made against the learned Presi- ding Officer are, as under:- (i) That the trial Court instead of giving him a reasonable opportunity to lead his evidence has proceeded with utmost hurry in closing his defence. (ii) That some people have been trying to approach the learned ACJM Fatehpur and treats have been conveyed to the petitioner by someone that he may either go to the High Court or Supreme Court but the decision will be in favour of the complainant. (7). Prima-facie, I am of the view that the petitioner has committed a deliberate lapse in not having approached this Court with clean hands by suppressing the relevant material from the notice of this Court and rather with some ulterior motives has not complied with the aforesaid directions of this Court dated 28.5.97. (8). As a result of the above discussion, I am of the view that this transfer application being highly motivated, frivolous and vexatious deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. (9). The transfer application is accordingly dismissed. (10). In the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to direct that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) be imposed as cost on the petitioner for having wasted the valuable time of this Court as well as of the Courts below. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount with the Secretary Legal Aid Board, Rajas- than High Court, Jaipur positively within a period of 4 weeks from today, failing which, the learned ACJM, Fatehpur will be free to get the same released/recovered from his property by issuing distress warrants in accordance with law.