STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VRAJLAL BHIMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . These Revision Applications have been filed by the State against the orders passed by the learned Magistrate on different dates in different cases. Applications were submitted for issuance of summons to witnesses and the orders passed thereon are challenged without giving facts of the case. Mr. S. T. Mehta, learned A.P.P. while arguing the matter was also not able to state before this Court that prosecution is launched against the accused persons for having committed a breach of particular statute. While filing the revision applications it was the duty of the applicant to narrate the facts in the memo of application. In the instant case, that is not done. Along with revision applications affidavit is required to be filed. But surprisingly in these applications, no affidavits are filed. While praying for dispensing with the affidavit, without narrating facts, the statement is made in each petition in the prayer clause that "affidavit may be kindly dispensed with as the facts are taken from the certified copy of the judgment". These revision applications are not against the judgment passed by the Trial Court but are filed against the order passed on applications with regard to issuance of summons. Therefore, ordinarily these applications preferred by the State should be rejected on the ground that facts are not stated in the applications and the prayer is made to dispense with as if the facts are stated in the applications. It may be that with a view to have limitation as stated by the learned A.P.P. in hot haste applications might have been preferred but certainly at subsequent stage the applicant was required to place on record the material and even having failed in doing so it is not proper for the State to urge that the record should be perused.

(2.) . Even office of the High Court while examining the petitions have not taken proper care in this behalf. It was for the registry to verify and if facts are not stated, ought to have raised an objection.

(3.) . In all these matters, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Una has rejected the application or has passed an order directing the prosecution to keep witnesses present instead of summoning witnesses. Even the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, in spite of some orders passed by the Presiding Officer in other cases, indicating that a general application should not be made, submitted very vague and general application requesting the Court to issue summons as per the convenience of the Court to witnesses whose names and addresses have been disclosed in column No. 4 of the charge-sheet giving reasons that neither the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor nor the Police Officers are authorised to issue summons. In some applications names have been given but addresses are not given and it appears that, therefore, the learned Magistrate might have rejected such applications.