MADHUKAR YESHWANTJOSHI Vs. BHIMRAO RAGHUNATH KARANDIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is field by a private complainant against the order of acquittal of the four accused passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Poona, in the prosecution which was launched by the State for offences under section 147, 307 and 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The hearing of the revision petition against respondent No. 4 (original accused No. 4) was separated, since, she being out of India, could not be served.

(3.) The revision petitioner is a practising lawyer and is the complainant himself. This matter was adjourned before my learned brother Jahagirdar, J , twice, once on 17-7-1978 and on the second occasion on 16-8-1978. The matter then reached before me on 21-8-1978 on which date again it was adjourned on the application of the petitioner to 4-9-1978. On 4-9-1978 at the instance of the Advocate for the accused the matter was adjourned to 11-9-1978. On 11-9-1978, the petitioner made an application for adjournment again till 18-9-1978. On 18 9-1978 again the petitioner applied for an adjournment on two grounds viz. that he was not ready with the paper book and secondly he wanted to engage an Advocate. I had rejected both the said grounds, however to leave no ground for complaint, I had adjourned the matter till to day. I have passed a written order in that behalf on 18-9-1978. After the matter reached hearing to day, the petitioner filed an application stating therein that Mr. Agarwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent accused had appeared for him in one criminal appeal filed in this Court. The subject matter of the said aopeal was as follows:- The petitioner had preferred a civil appeal in the Poona Court against the present accused No. 1. In that appeal, accused No. 1 had filed an affidavit. According to the petitioner, the statements made in the said affidavit were false and therefore he wanted the lower Appellate Judge to sanction the prosecution of accused No. 1. The learned Judge did not pass any order on the said application for a long time and therefore under his instructions an appeal was filed in this Court against the alleged refusal of the Appellate Judge to sanction the prosecution of accused No. 1. It is in this appeal that Mr. Agarwal, according to the petitioner had filed his appearance on his behalf. The petitioner therefore, by the present application requested That the appearance of Mr. Agarwal for the accused be cancelled. I rejected this application on the ground that the matter in which Mr. Agarwal appeared for the petitioner had nothing whatsoever to do with the present proceedings. Thereafter the matter proceeded and the petitioner, argued for an hour. After recess, Mr. Agarwal for the accused requested permission of the Court to withdraw his appearance on behalf of the accused in view of the allegations made by the petitioner against him and stated that the Advocate on record Mrs. Agarwal would represent the accused. I saw ro objection to allowing Mr. Agarwal to withdraw his appearance. Thereupon, the petitioner, filed an application proving for an adjournment of the case on the ground that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not present in the Court and that they should be summoned and the matter be heard in their presence. He further stated in the application that it was not possible for him and he did not intend to participate in the proceedings beyond what he had already stated in the revision petition. I rejected the application for adjornment. Thereafter the petitioner stated that he had nothing further to say and closed his case. After some time he presented another application saying that he had already given his application stating " that he does not participate in the proceedings. He is suffering from dysentry. He therefore leaves the Court at 4 p.m. if the Court permits."I had already told him about the order that I was passingin his revision application and therefore permitted him to leave the Court. This is with regard to the developments of this revision application in this Court.