Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1005 (PAT)

Ram Autar Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-06

SADANAND MUKHERJEE

body2006
Judgment Sadanand Mukherjee, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 17.6.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Case No. 364(C) of 1992 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to reject the prayer of the complainant to examine the complainant and Doctor in this case who are said to be material witnesses in the case. 2. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, stating therein that while the petitioner was sowing paddy on 27.7.1992 the accused persons who are opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 armed with deadly weapon came and uprooted the paddy crops. This petitioner Anil Mandal and Raghunandan Mandal protested. The accused persons started assaulting the complainant party. Rameshwar Pandit assaulted Raghu Nandan Mandal with lathi on head and Gobardhan Pandi assaulted in hand.-Ram Bilash Pandit. Sheo Nandan Pandit and. Antram Pandit assaulted Anil Mandal with lathi and Khanti. The villagers came on alarm and the accused persons started fighting with the villagers. Villagers also assaulted accused persons. 3. During trial Rameshwar Pandit, Gohardhan Pandit and Dhari Mandal died. 4. It has further been stated, that on 8.8.1995, petition was filed on behalf of the Petitioner to issue Dasti summon for appearance of the doctor who had examined and recorded the injuries report. But due to frequent transfer of the Presiding Officer, no action was taken. Thereafter on 17.12.2003 a petition under sec. 311 of the Cr. P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner for examination of the complainant and the doctor to meet the ends of justice but the same was rejected on 17.6.2004. 5. It has been submitted that the complainant and the Doctor were essential for examination for just decision of the case and the delay was not a ground to reject the prayer for examination of the witnesses. It has also been submitted that at any stage of the trial the court can summon the witnesses for examination to meet the ends of justice. It has also been submitted that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. does not permit the court below to reject the petition if justice is required to examine the witness. 6. It has also been submitted that at any stage of the trial the court can summon the witnesses for examination to meet the ends of justice. It has also been submitted that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. does not permit the court below to reject the petition if justice is required to examine the witness. 6. In the above background of the case it is necessary to make appraisal of the merit of the impugned order dated 17 06.2004 in which the learned court below has indicated the reasons for rejection of the petition. The aforesaid order enunciates the details which amply makes clear whether in the interest of justice, the circumstances of the case, warranty exercise of the power of the Court u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. 7. The complaint case is of the year 1992. On 3.2.1994 charge was framed. Thereafter in the above status the case of the complainant was closed by the Court on 19.8.1995, whereupon a criminal revision No. 285 of 1995 was instituted in this Court. This Court dismissed the aforesaid petition. Thereafter the learned court below on grant of cost of Rs. 150.00 allowed the prayer of the complainant which was set aside by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hunger in Cr. Revision No. 40 of 1996 vide order dated 8.1.1996 . A criminal Misc No. 11360 of 1998 was filed in this court against the aforesaid order. The aforesaid. criminal Miscellaneous petition ws dismissed for non- prosecution. 8. Under the aforesaid circumstances the Court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner u/s. 311 Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to mention here that after giving sufficient opportunity to the complainant, the petitioner in this case the prayer of the complainant was rejected. 9. From perusal of the impugned order of the court below it appears that the court below rejected the prayer of the complainant after due application of mind. It appears from the impugned order that the court below had given ample opportunity to the complainant which was not availed by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant also moved the higher courts; as stated above and the prayer of the complainant was not entertained. This is an old case of the Year 1992. It appears from the impugned order that the court below had given ample opportunity to the complainant which was not availed by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant also moved the higher courts; as stated above and the prayer of the complainant was not entertained. This is an old case of the Year 1992. The learned Court below after due application of mind had rejected the prayer as the court, was not satisfied that such examination of the witnesses was essential for just decision of the case. 10. Under the circumstances mentioned above I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This application, thus, stands dismissed.