INDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is unfortunate that the only eye witnessis not being produced before the Trial Court by the prosecution for recordinghis statement for the last five years.

(2.) . It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to produce all thewitnesses on the date fixed by the Trial Court and it is no justification tosay that the witnesses are not being served. The matter cannot be allowedto be proceeded like civil matters. It seems that the prosecution agency hasforgotten its cardinal duty to produce prosecution witnesses on the datesfixed by the Trial Court for recording their statements. Non production ofprosecution witnesses on due dates impedes and delays the Trial resultingin miscarriage of justice and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Itis not the only case in which the prosecution is taking the plea that thewitnesses are not being served.

(3.) . Considering the fact that Trial started in the year 1988 and theonly eye witness. Sh. Prithpal Singh, has not appeared for the last aboutfive years, it is directed that the State must produce the said witness on thenext date fixed by the Trial Court. In case Sh. Prithpal Singh is not produced on the next date, the petitioner will be entitled to bail and it will beopen to him to move the learned Additional Sessions Judge for thispurpose.With these observations the petition stands disposed of.Copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police.