M K BEG Vs. NIKHILESH BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., has been directed against the order dated 30 -9 -1999 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in criminal revision No. 187/99 setting aside the order dated 23 -3 -1999, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in criminal case No. 703/98 rejecting the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for closing the prosecution.

(2.) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are facing trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for offence under Section 420, 467,468, 471 and 120 -B IPC. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application that since more than three years have elapsed since the initiation of criminal proceedings against them and the prosecution could not adduce the entire evidence in support of the allegations, the right of the prosecution to adduce evidence should be closed, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar The learned Magistrate rejected the application by order dated 23 -3 -1999. Being aggrieved by said order, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred a revision before the Sessions Court. The learned Judge by order dated 30 -9 -1999 passed in criminal revision No. 187/99 quashed the order dated 23 -3 -1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30 -9 -1999, the complainant/ petitioner filed the present petition.

(3.) IT is also apparent from the record that because the proceedings of the trial court were stayed twice by this court there was delay in adducing evidence. The ratio of judgment in Rajdeo Shanna's case (Supra) is not that in each and every case where the prosecution does not adduce evidence within the stipulated period, the right of the prosecution to adduce evidence should be closed.