DHEERAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. A. Zaidi, J. Applicant is an accused in S. T. No. 1263 of 2006 (state of U. P. v. Dheeraj) pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffar Nagar.

(2.) HE has come to this Court under Section 407, Cr. P. C. The facts relating to this application are that the Trial Judge summoned the prosecution witnesses complainant P. W. 1 Naseem, his wife P. W. 2 Smt. Naseema and P. W. 4 Rafikan for re-examination after they were declared hostile, cross-examined and discharged. The applicant says that on 29-11-2007, when P. W. 1 Naseem appeared for re-examination, the Trial Judge threatened him, saying that in case he did not sup port the prosecution case besides punishing the accused, he will punish him too, and why had he not brought alongwith him, his wife P. W. 2 Smt. Naseema. The Trial Judge re-examined P. W. 2 Smt. Naseema on 8-1 -2008, despite, that the defence Counsel, was ill and an application was moved seeking adjournment. For all these reasons, the applicant had reason to believe that justice, may not be done, to him.

(3.) THE desideratum of a judicial trial is the discovery of truth, and a Judge, must make all efforts within the parameter of law, to unearth the truth. THE judge cannot go round and meet people at-the place of occurrence, and, try to find out things for himself as used to be done previously, by Adjudicators. THE Judge has to confine his activities to the Court-room and try to uncover the real facts by summoning witnesses, and by asking them about the incident. This is not only the right, but the duty of the Judge. He not supposed to be a passive spectator or a Tape Recorder of the evidence. He has to actively participate in the proceed ings, with a view, to find out the real truth. If he does not do so, he will abdicating his functions.