Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 309 (PNJ)

Harun Rashid v. State Of Haryana

2001-03-07

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant-petitioner, seeking setting aside the order dated 29.5.2000, passed by the JMIC, Nuh, closing the evidence of the prosecution by the order of the Court. 2. Accused respondent No. 2, Imrat, was facing trial in a case under Sections 420/467/468/447/479, IPC of Police Station, Taoru, vide FIR No. 307 of 1998. Aggrieved against the said order of the trial Magistrate, the complainant filed the present petition in this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. impleading State of Haryana as the respondent. Subsequently, the accused, Imrat, put in appearance in this petition. Vide order dated 24.11.2000, it was directed that accused, Imrat shall be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this petition, by the office and the case was adjourned for arguments. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 3. On 29.5.2000, when the case was listed for prosecution evidence, 3 PWs were present and examined. However, 2 witnesses, namely ASI Dharambir and SD Dubey, Deputy Mining Engineer, could not be served for the said date. The learned trial Magistrate closed the evidence of the prosecution by the order of the Court, without keeping in view the report of the serving official on the summons issued for the purpose. Even if 29.5.2000 was the last opportunity for the prosecution evidence, in my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate should have granted one more opportunity to the prosecution to produce the remaining evidence, especially when one of the 2 witnesses, namely SD Dubey, Deputy Mining Engineer, had been transferred and the serving official had asked for his new address and place of posting for effecting service upon him. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has submitted before me that one more opportunity be given to the prosecution to produce remaining evidence. It has further been submitted that the complainant-petitioner shall give the correct addresses of the two witnesses namely ASI Dharambir and SD Dubey. He has further submitted that besides issuing summons in the ordinary way, the summons may also be given dasti to the petitioner, so that the above said witnesses may be served for the date fixed for the remaining evidence of the prosecution. 5. He has further submitted that besides issuing summons in the ordinary way, the summons may also be given dasti to the petitioner, so that the above said witnesses may be served for the date fixed for the remaining evidence of the prosecution. 5. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the present petition is allowed, the order dated 29.5.2000, passed by the trial Magistrate, is set aside, subject to the condition that the prosecution would be given one more opportunity to produce remaining evidence. It is further directed that for the date fixed for the remaining prosecution evidence, the summons to the remaining witnesses, named above, shall be issued by the trial Court, in the ordinary way and the summons shall also be given dasti to the present petitioner, who is complainant in this case, so that the service may be got effected on the said witnesses. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be given to the prosecution to produce remaining witnesses. It shall be the duty of the present petitioner to give the correct addresses of the above said witnesses, so that the summons may be issued to them on the correct addresses. 6. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 27.3.2001, on which date the trial Court shall fix a date for examining the remaining witnesses of the prosecution.