SABU JACOB Vs. V K SOMAN ACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The case was filed as early as in 1991. It has had chequered career. By Annex.1 order, this court had directed that proceedings must be completed within a period of six months from the date on which the parties appear before the learned Magistrate. The parties appeared on 12.12.2006. The case was adjourned to 3.1.2007. There was no sitting on that day. The case was adjourned to 20.1.2007. On that day, the complainant reported that he has no further evidence to be adduced. Thereafter the case was posted for defence evidence to 3.3.2007. It is not seen that the case was posted for S.313 examination in between. I must assume that such examination under Section 313 must also have been over before Annex.1 order was passed.

(2.) Be that as it may, when the case was posted to 3.3.2007 the petitioner filed an application on 24.2.2007 to advance the hearing of the case, to issue summons to the witnesses and to permit him to be examined as a witness. That application was dismissed by Annex.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was posted for the first time for defence evidence to 3.3.07. The petitioner had filed the application on 24.2.07 praying for issue of summons. This court had made it clear that the parties can seek assistance of the court for summoning witnesses. But it shall be their responsibility to make available the witnesses sought to be examined by them. The learned Magistrate, in these circumstances, need only have directed handing over of the summons to the petitioner and the petitioner would have ensured that the witnesses do appear before the court on 3.3.07. Not having done that, the course adopted by the learned Magistrate has virtually denied the petitioner opportunity to adduce evidence, it is submitted. Even going by Annex.1 order, the petitioner is entitled atleast for two opportunities to give evidence. He had not been given even one opportunity as the matter stands posted for defence evidence at the first instance to 3.3.07.

(3.) I have anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused Annex.5 order. I am of opinion that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent/complainant, which would further cause protraction of the proceedings. I am satisfied that this Crl.M.C. can be allowed and appropriate directions can be issued.