KAMLAPATI MISRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri K.D. Dubey learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) The main thrust of the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 1999, SC 3524(Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar) has laid down certain criteria for discharging an accused in a case which remained pending for more than 2 years if punishable with impris?onment for 7 years R.I. The present offence was tried under Section 325 I.P.C. and it is further contended that nearly four years have elapsed and the trial has not yet concluded. As per order-sheet of the trial Court most of the time the guilty party was the prosecution itself. But from a careful perusal of the order of the learned trial Court it is revealed that on 3 or 4 dates adjournment was obtained by the accused persons and on several dates the trial Judge itself was on leave and some time has also been lost because of the vacancy of the Court. The prosecution has taken most of the time in producing the witness?es. In the circumstances the order by the trial Court affording the prosecution last opportunity to adduce its evidence cannot be termed in any manner against the law laid down by the Apex Court. The facts of every case are to be relied upon and examined in its own perspective as has been held by Apex Court in a subsequent judgment reported in Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal v. State of Maharashtra (2001 (42) All. Cri. C. 617. in which it has been held :-

(3.) In view of the observation of the apex Court in the case discussed above I am of the confirmed opinion that last opportunity afforded by the trial Court to the prosecution cannot be said to be wrong or beyond law. The accused cannot be allowed to go Scot-free because the prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses on the date fixed by the trial Court. Every State has its own problems. The huge number of pending cases is one of the reasons behind this delay in trials in this State. Courts are over burdened. The second ground is lack of sufficient strength of officers in the trial Courts. These are the problems which the judicial system of this State is presently facing. The district Court is functioning with insufficient number of judicial offi?cers. Therefore, delay in trial is unavoidable. It cannot be squarely put on the shoulders of the Court. These accused persons are on bail. These are some of the features which cannot be overlooked while considering the guidelines set by the Apex Court in the decision relied upon by learned counsel. In the circumstances this revision has no merit. The trial Court is directed to afford the last opportunity to the prosecution. It will not afford any further opportunity to the prosecution unless a valid and proper explanation for non-production of the witnesses by the prosecution is afforded. No further date should be allowed on mere asking of the prosecutor.