STATE Vs. RAMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has had a long history in the High Court. The State has appealed against the order of acquittal on the ground that it is unjustified whereas the respondents' learned advocate submitted that with the record as it stood, the order of acquittal was perfectly warranted because, regardless of the charges, that there were really serious lacunae in the present case in so far as the Investigating Officer was not examined, the doctor was not examined and certain material parts of the records were deficient. It was for this reason that we called for an explanation from the Presiding Officer and he has tried to put forward the plea that the prosecutor was the person responsible. He has also tried to point out that the greater part of the proceeding had taken place during the tenure of his predecessor and that consequently, he is not responsible. What we need to point out is that irrespective of what the state of the record may be or what orders the predecessor may have passed, a responsible Judicial Officer is required to take requisite corrective action even to off set the damage and consequently, this explanation is not good enough. Furthermore, the explanation put forward that the conduct of the trial is in the hands of the prosecutor and that the Presiding Judge has no say as regards the manner in which the trial is conducted is absolutely wrong. We do concede that the responsibility of conducting the trial is that of the prosecutor but the Presiding Judge is not a dispassionate spectator in the courtroom. The Judicial Officer is responsible in (sic) that the interests of justice are not frustrated. The trial Judge is required to play a supervisory role and the trial Judge is empowered under the law to pass appropriate orders in cases where the prosecutors are negligent or corrupt or both. If material evidence is not forthcoming the trial Judge is not required to close his eyes to this and similarly, if material witnesses such as the doctor or the Investigating Officer are not examined by the prosecutor either out of negligence or for ulterior reasons, the law empowers the Presiding Officer with enough of powers and scope to compel the attendance of these witnesses and to also take action against the prosecutors who misbehave in this fashion. It is necessary that the Presiding Officers of all the trial Courts take serious note of our observations as we have found this state of affairs which is highly unsatisfactory, becoming more and more prevalent.

(2.) THE ultimate outcome of the trial will depend on the evidence and on the merits and we say absolutely nothing with regard to whether a case should end in an acquittal or conviction because that is strictly covered by the merits and the law. What this Court is insisting on is that the procedure prescribed by law must be followed and this Court will not under any circumstances tolerate situations where the cases go by default because that results in a miscarriage of justice and a failure of justice. That is precisely what has happened in the present case and it is for this reason that we set aside the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 1-9-2001 in C. C. No. 206/98. The records if received to be returned to the trial Court. Since the accused are represented they are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12-8-2002. The trial Court to reopen the proceedings, ensure that the procedure prescribed by the law is complied with in so far as the material witnesses are summoned and examined and to thereafter dispose of the case according to law. The appeal accordingly succeeds to this extent and stands disposed of on merits. We direct the Registrar General to circulate a copy of this order to all the Courts hearing criminal cases in the State.

(3.) BY a separate order dated 11-4-2002 we had directed the prosecutor Sri B. Shashidhar to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act. This person has remained absent thereafter and he has not shown cause. The Registrar General to accordingly register a contempt proceeding against Sri B. Shashidhar on the strength of this Court's order dated 11-4-2002. That contempt proceeding shall be separately numbered and these appeal papers will be produced before the Division Bench when that proceeding is listed for orders. Order accordingly.