P K SHASTRI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) In this appeal, the appellant has challenged before us that part of the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby the learned Judge had "directed that an entry be made in the C.R. of the Presiding Officer that he has no control over the proceedings of the Court inasmuch as he permits the prosecutor to leave several times during the Court hours, as a result, the work suffers as pointed out by him in his explanation dated 12-3-98. Let copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General, for making an entry in the C.R. of the Presiding Officer." The brief facts necessary for considering this appeal are as follows: While disposing of a bail application, the High Court on 26-9-1997 directed that the trial Court at Datia before which Session Trial No. 91/95 was pending, should dispose of the said case within 4 months from the date of receipt of the records of the case. Since the said direction was not complied with by the appellant who was the Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court at that time, the High Court as per its order dated 6-3-1998 called for an explanation from the appellant; more particularly, as to why the appellant as the Presiding Officer, had adjourned the case on 20-10-1997 and why he allowed the Additional Public Prosecutor to leave the Court on 14-1-1998. The said order also specifically directed the appellant to submit his explanation as to why the Sessions Trial was not concluded within 4 months as per the directions issued by the order of the High Court on 26-9-1997.