RAMESH NAND LAL Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under Section 401, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 24-7-1997 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 231 of 1996 State Versus Atul and others under Section 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C.

(2.) By the impugned order dated 24-7-1997 the learned Sessions Judge has ordered to close the prosecution evidence as the prosecution has failed to produce one Mr. Balram Mishra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was the investigating Officer of the case and nowadays is posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Vigilance Department under the Director, Vigilance, Uttar Pradesh. It has been stated in the impugned order that the prosecution has failed to produce Sri Balram Misra despite several opportunities being given. It has also been mentioned by the learned Special Judge that the special feature of this case has been that whenever the warrants had been issued to ensure the presence of Mr. Balram Misra the police has invariably reported that Mr. Balram Misra was neither available at his residence nor at the place of posting. It was in these circumstances that the learned court below closed the prosecution evidence and fixed a date for recording the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the evidence of Mr. Balram Misra is very essential in the case as the applicant's daughter was killed by her in-laws and Mr. Balram Misra had investigated the case and in case Mr. Balram Misra is not produced the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and injury. It has further been stated that the applicant had traced out the address of Sri Balram Misra who was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Directorate of Vigilance, Lucknow and if the warrants would have been sent through the Higher Police Officers such as Director of Vigilance the presence of Mr. Balram Mishra would have been enforced.