NARAYAN GAONKAR Vs. DAYANAND LAXMAN ALIAS CHANDRAKANT CALANGUTKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the Original Complainant in Criminal Case No. 176/96/i/sr which was initiated against the present Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for an offence punishable under Section 325, 504, 506, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Magistrate by his Order dated 18th September, 2000, acquitted the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4The Order of learned Trial Magistrate acquitting the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is assailed before me in the present Petition.

(2.) THE charge in the present case against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was framed by the learned Trial Magistrate on 6th March,m 1997 and an additional charge was framed on 8th August, 1997. On 16th August, 1999, an application came to be filed by the present Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contending therein that since a period of two years had elapsed from the date of framing of the additional charge, the prosecution evidence be closed in view of the judgment reported in Rajdev Sharma V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1988 SC 3281. THE learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State before the learned Trial Magistrate filed an application Exh. C-1 pointing out to the Court that because the Presiding Officer who was on leave on 25th June, 1999, the case had to be adjourned to 26th July, 1999. THE learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, therefore, prayed that reasonable time be granted for completing the evidence. THE learned Trial Magistrate passed an Order dated 11th October, 1999, closing the prosecution case in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the present Respondent Nos. 1 to 4THE learned Trial Magistrate, therefore, fixed the case for recording the statement of the Appellant and for hearing the arguments. THE aforesaid order came to be passed on 11th October, 1999 and the case was adjourned to 15th November, 1999. On 10th March 2000, the learned Trial Magistrate completed the recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and posted the case for arguments on 3rd April, 2000. THE learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments and by his judgment dated 18th September, 2000, acquitted the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 of the aforesaid offences.

(3.) THE Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had filed an application on 16th August, 1999 for closing the prosecution case. According to the Respondents, the period of two years expired as the additional charge was framed on 8th August, 1997. THE learned Trial Court was oblivious of the fact that when the application came to be moved by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma V. State of Bihar (Supra) had been stayed by the Supreme Court. THE stay operated from 14th May, 1999 till 22nd September, 1999. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in Raj Deo Sharma (II) V. State of Bihar (supra) had directed that the said period from 14th May, 1999 till 22nd September, 1999 will have to be excluded from the said additional period of one year. THE prosecution will be entitled to claim an additional period for completing the evidence. THE learned Trial Court closed the evidence on 11th October, 1999. It would be apparent that from August 1999, when a period of two years expires from the framing of the charge, the prosecution was entitled to a further period of 4 months and 8 days plus an additional year as per the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. This subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court by either the complainant or the Accused. Be that as it may, the prosecution was entitled to a further period of 1 year, 4 months and 8 days. THE learned Trial Magistrate was, therefore, according to me, extremely hasty in closing the prosecution case by not giving proper opportunity to the prosecution to examine all the witnesses. It is agreed before me by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties that the evidence of the Medical Officer alone remains to be recorded. It would be a travesty of justice if Accused are acquitted for want of recording of the evidence of Medical Officer. It is a different matter if the acquittal emanates on the basis of the merits of the matter.