SHIV KUMAR Vs. IN CHARGE SESSIONS JUDGE BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. The petitioner was facing a trial for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. before the IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. During the course of trial, on an application from the side of the prosecution, some more persons namely Shiv Ram, Suryamani, Ram Kamal and Suresh were summoned under Sec. 315 of Cr. P.C. This order dated 7-11-1994 has been challenged by the petitioner by way of revision before the Sessions Judge, Basti and when revision failed on 16-10-1995, this writ petition has been preferred. The ground is that the case has been lingering on since long and the prosecution witnesses were not turning up and now when the witnesses turned up, the summoning of additional persons as accused in the case under Sec. 319 Cr. P.C. goes against the right of the petitioner for speedy trial. The petitioner is on bail. He is not one of the persons who have been summoned under Sec. 319 Cr. P.C. We do not have before us any challenge to the summoning order under Section 319 Cr. P.C. by the person summoned by that order. The sacred right of speedy trial possessed by an accused cannot be interpreted in such a way as to render nugatory the provisions of Section 319 Cr. P.C. which are to be invoked by the trial court in a suitable case where the material on record so justifies. It is to be noticed that in the judgement in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 1995 the Incharge Sessions Judge has recorded that after a date was fixed in the case for framing the charges, on several dates applications were moved on behalf of the present petitioner for exempting the personal attendance on one ground or the other. It is true that the prosecution could not produce its witnesses on several dates and the case lingered on but the recourse to the revision before the Sessions Judge and the recourse to the present writ petition was least likely to sub serve the professed interest of the petitioner of speedy trial of his case. On the contrary on the admission of this writ petition which also contained any application for staying the operation of the judgement and order passed in the revision and also the judgement of the trial court summoning the accused under Sec. 319 Cr. P.C. was bound to protract the proceedings before the Magistrate further. Obviously, this writ petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial court would be expediting the trial of the case as much as possible.Petition dismissed.