STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL HARDAS GORDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has approached this Court against the judgment and order dated 19-9-1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junagadh in Criminal Case No. 4899 of 1988 acquitting the accusedrespondents.

(2.) In the present case, the respondents were charged for offences punishable under Secs. 147, 148, 324, 326, 337, 427, 506(2) of I.P.C. and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The charge was framed on 26-2-1990 and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 17-3-1990 for taking evidence. On 17-3-1990, further the matter was adjourned to 24-4-1990. Then on 24-4-1990 again the matter was adjourned to 19-6-1990. On 19-6-1990, it is stated in the Rojnama that a Resolution was passed by the Bar Association to go on strike and, therefore, the matter is adjourned for taking evidence to 30-6-1990. On 30-6-1990 accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16 and 17 were absent and on behalf of the said accused, exemption application was filed at Ex. 35 and the same was granted. On that day, the matter was adjourned for taking evidence to 4-8-1990. In the Rojnama it is shown that on 4-8-1990 because there was a Resolution of the Bar Association to go on strike, the matter was adjourned to 12-9-1990. On 12-9-1990 accused No. 4 was absent and an application was made on his behalf to exempt him from appearing and the same was granted. The Rojnama shows that the prosecution witnesses were not present and the matter was adjourned for taking evidence to 19-9-1990. On 19-9- 1990, according to the Rojnama, the accused were present. It is mentioned in the Rojnama that though summonses were issued to the prosecution witnesses, they have not remained present and on that day, on behalf of the prosecution the learned A.P.P. had given an application at Ex. 31 that even though the summonses were served, the witnesses arc not present and, therefore, bailable warrants be issued. The Court passed an order rejecting that application stating that many adjournments were given and, therefore, this application is rejected and then proceeded further and acquitted the accused under Sec. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Mr. D. K. Trivedi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that it is not that at all times the matter was adjourned because the prosecution witnesses were not present, but on two occasions the Court adjourned the matter because there was a Resolution of strike on behalf of the Bar Association. He also submitted that in spite of the application, Ex. 38 requesting the Court to issue bailable warrants against the witnesses, the Court rejected the application made on behalf of the prosecution. Mr. D. K. Trivedi submitted that the trial Court ought to have issued bailable warrants against the prosecution witnesses instead of taking the easy course by acquitting the accused. He has also relied upon the judgment of this High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Nagin Amara Vasava and Ors; reported in 1982 (1) GLR 661. I find much force in the submission made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Trivedi.