STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NARENDRA SINGH LAKHUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20th April, 1986 passed by P.M. Vyas, learned J.M.F.C., Jam-Jodhpur, wherein respondent- Naredrasinh Lakhubhai and two others who came to be tried on the charge of obstructing one Jayantibhai Patel, a Ticket Checker in State Transport Bus on duty and causing injury to him for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 332, 186,504 and 34 of the I.P.C., were ordered to be acquitted in the midst of the trial by arbitrarily closing the prosecution evidence, denying the prosecution its precious right to examine the material witnesses and thereby bring home the charge against the accused persons.

(2.) On perusal of the record and proceedings, it appears that the alleged offence took place on 5-9-1986 at 11.45 hours at Jam-Jodhpur in a bus. The charge-sheet in the said regard was filed on 11-11-1986. Thereafter, the charge Exh-18 was framed and plea of the accused pursuant thereto was recorded on the very same day i.e., 18-2-1989, after about two years. Thereafter, two Panchwitnesses, that is to say, P.W. Nos. 1 & 2 were examined on 22-8-1989, while Panch-witness No.3 was examined on 19-1-1990. It further appears that several times summons were issued to the injured complainant at his office address, one after another at Jamnagar, Upleta and Rajkot, where he was subsequently transferred and found to be serving at the relevant time which mechanically returned un-served with endorsements, such as [i] not serving at the place of address; [ii] transferred; [iii] was on long, leave, etc. etc. It also appears that at no point of time either the process server or the investigating Officer, and for that purpose, even the learned PP ever tried to find out the correct residential address of the complainant, particularly when he was not available at the place where he was ordinarily serving. It further appears that the learned Magistrate also in his part, quite surprisingly leaving the fate of justice at the mercy of totally impersonal and callous attitude of the process server; without doing anything of his on to examine the injured complainant and the medical officer, all of a sudden closed the prosecution evidence quite arbitrarily and acquitted the accused. Greater still is the surprise that the learned APP in-charge of the case also did not even whisper objecting to the closing of prosecution evidence. It is under these circumstances that the State has preferred the present acquittal appeal.

(3.) The aforesaid state of affairs distinctly surfaces three things on the top; namely,