STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. LAKSHMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ). We have heard the learned Government Pleader on I. A. I, as also oh merits because the latter aspect is of some consequence while considering whether or not to condone the delay. As far as i. A. I is concerned, the delay is condoned, I. A. I is allowed.

(2.) COMING however to the; merits, we note the fact that except for P. Ws. 1 and 2, that the Trial Court has observed that C. Ws. 1 to 6 who are the injured eye witnesses, the doctor and mahazar witnesses are not available for purposes of evaluation, of their evidence. The trial Court has held that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is not sufficient to establish the charges. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Prosecutor in the lower Court had requested for re-issue of the non-bailable warrants and that this application was turned down. In our considered view, the decision of the Trial Court is justified on the facts of this case because the Court has given sufficient opportunity to the prosecution as is observed, whose duty it is to keep the witnesses present. The coercive action is issuing a warrant is by way of assistance which the Court does if the prosecution experiences difficulty in keeping the witnesses present on its own. In this case, we take note of the fact that from the absence of the injured witnesses, the only legitimate inference that would arise is that they are no longer interested in the prosecution and if this is the case, we see no reason why the proceeding should be reopened. More importantly, the trial Court had issued non-bailable warrants and has observed that these have not bean executed. We do not believe that if the Police are serious about their duties, that it would have been impossible for them to execute non-bailable warrants as the injured witnesses are obviously residents of that area. The doctor and the mahazar witnesses are also persons who could easily have been secured. We need to make it very clear that the prosecuting agencies are not to assume that the Couris will keep on adjourning criminal cases any number of times merely because the prosecuting authorities are lax in their duties or because they do not produce the evidence when it is required. Every effort is made in all quarters to streamline the working of the system to inject the level of expediciency and efficiency and, it is very distressing to come across cases of this type where the witnesses from the local areas have not been kept present. An assurance was given by this Court earlier on behalf of the Police Department that special steps are being taken to ensure that all Court processes such as notices, summons and warrants would be executed diligently and that there would be a full stop to these lapses. It is very necessary that the Police Department devote special attention to ensuring that the assurance given to the high Court is scrupulously followed.

(3.) HAVING regard to the aforesaid situation, we need to point out that opportunity to lead evidence will be available to the prosecution only once and that if it is not availed of as has happened in this case, that there will be no further opportunity for the prosecution. We have also had occasion to observe that the party at whose instance the prosecution has emanated namely the injured witnesses do not appear to be any longer interested in the prosecution and it is in this background, that we decline to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.