Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 59 (PAT)

Mahesh Tulsiyan v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-09

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P. P. for the State. 2. The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga dismissing Cr. Revision No. 181/05 filed by the petitioner to regulate the proceeding in the court below as also to close the prosecution evidence of Darbhanga (Town) RS. Case No. 152/1994 (C.R. No. 172/1996, Tr. No.61/05) pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. 3. It appears that one Satya Narayan Sah filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate inter alia alleging that at about 8 A.M. on 29.6.1994 when he reached his shop he saw that the alleged accused persons variously armed with rifle and knives had broken the lock of the shop and having entered therein had lifted articles and papers from the shop with the help of labourers and these were loaded on a TATA 407 Van. It is further said that when the complainant objected, he, under the order of accused Bhola Tulsiyan andNirmal Kumar, was assaulted with fists and slaps and the accused persons tied him in the shop. It is further alleged that the approximate cost of the articles taken away from the shop was around Rs. 80,000.00. 4. It appears that the complaint petition was referred to the concerned police station where it was registered as Darbhanga (Town) P.S. Case No. 152/94. It further appears that the police found the case to be false and submitted a final form but on the protest petition of the complaint cognizance was taken and charges were framed. 5. The grievance of the petitioner who happens to be the accused is that the trial is proceeding in a lethargic and leisurely manner and he alongwith the other accused who are innocent and are unnecessarily being sought to be prosecuted in a false case which is going on for the last ten years. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that notwithstanding the direction of the Sessions Judge dated 12.5.2003 passed in Cr. Rev. Mo. 94/02 directing the trial court to dispose of the case within one month from the date of receipt of the order no coercive steps were taken in that regard. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that notwithstanding the direction of the Sessions Judge dated 12.5.2003 passed in Cr. Rev. Mo. 94/02 directing the trial court to dispose of the case within one month from the date of receipt of the order no coercive steps were taken in that regard. As a matter of fact there was no progress in the litigation and after expiry of the period fixed by the revisional court the accused persons filed a petition for proceeding in accordance with the observations made in Cr. Rev. 94/02. But the trial court did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed the same. Against that rejection order Cr. Rev. No. 292/04 was preferred by the present petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 27.5.04 allowed the same and directed the trial court to dispose of the case without further delay and notwithstanding the order passed in Cr. Rev. No. 292/04 the learned Magistrate refused to close the case. Accordingly, Cr. Rev. No. 181/05 was filed by the petitioner herein praying for earlier closure of the trial in the light of the observations made in the earlier revisions. 6. As it appears the complainant had been examined in part whereafter he did not turn up on the next date and eventually he was reported to be dead. It is said that his son sought permission from the court and got himself substituted in place of the deceased complainant/informant and he too had not been examined. 7. Since the trial continued and no effective result was forthcoming the accused moved the Sessions Court in Cr. Revision No. 181/05 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2005 directing the trial court to dispose of the old case without any further delay and in accordance with the directions given in Cr. Rev. No.410/04. 8. Admittedly, the trial is ten years old and notwithstanding the directions passed in Cr. Rev. No. 410/04 the learned trial court has not adhered to the directions given vide order dated 4.3.2005. It appears that the learned trial court has only been passing routine orders instead of making attempts to conclude the trial as directed by the order passed in Cr. Rev. No. 410/04. Rev. No. 410/04 the learned trial court has not adhered to the directions given vide order dated 4.3.2005. It appears that the learned trial court has only been passing routine orders instead of making attempts to conclude the trial as directed by the order passed in Cr. Rev. No. 410/04. It should be remembered that justice delayed is justice denied and the trial court is directed to dispose of the trial in terms of the order passed in Cr. Rev. No. 410/04 without further delay. If the complaint does not turn up notwithstanding resort being taken to coercive measures the learned trial court will proceed to dispose of the trial in accordance with law expeditiously. The trial court is further directed to issue summons to the substituted complainant within one week of the receipt of the order and if the complainant does not appear or produce his witnesses the court below will take appropriate step to dispose of the trial preferably within a period of three months. 9. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of.