OM PRAKASH Vs. MURTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 5th April, 2006 which reads as under :

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the trial court failed to appreciate that the complainant was present on each and every date of hearing and due to the lawyers' strike, he could not get the assistance of lawyers, and in this situation, the Court should have provided him legal assistance for his examination in chief or could have adjourned the case as nobody can examine himself by way of examination in chief. It is also stated that the trial court failed to appreciate that lot of time was consumed by respondent herself in seeking adjournments and on account of filing frivolous applications.

(3.) A perusal of the order sheets would show that after giving notice to the accused on 29.7.2005, the case was posted by the learned MM for complainant's evidence on 18.11.2005. On 18.11.2005, counsel for the complainant was busy in another court. No complainant's evidence was examined. The Court observed that busyness was no ground for adjournment. However, the case was adjourned for 3rd January, 2006. On 3rd January, 2006, no PE was present. The complainant had not offered to examine himself as a witness, as alleged in the appeal and the case was adjourned to 1st February, 2006, giving last opportunity for evidence. On 1.2.2006, complainant again sought adjournment, stating that the witness were not available. The trial court granted one more opportunity for examination of the complainant's witnesses observing that this was final opportunity and no further adjournment shall be given and PE shall be closed if no witness is examined. On 5.4.2006 again complainant did not examine any witness and the evidence was closed and accused was acquitted.