BISHNU PADA SAHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the accused of G. R. Case No. 228/76 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Tamlul, arising out of Paskura P. S. Case No. 27 dated 24-2-76 under Sections 406/465/4671468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code has filed the instant revisional application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceeding in the said G. R. case.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the instant application may be stated as follows :

(3.) In view of the gravity of the offences involved in this case and in view of the fact that in spite of his best efforts, the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period, the learned Magistrate by his order fixed 31-7-91 for evidence of I.O. for examination of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and also for recording evidence of defence witnesses, if any. On 31-7-91, the learned Magistrate received a message stating that the I.O. was dead. The prosecution produced one witness for examination. On behalf of the accused petitioner, a written objection was filed against the proposed examination of the said witness for prosecution and, upon consideration of the submissions made by the parties, the learned Magistrate allowed the said witness to be examined for the ends of justice. After his examination on behalf of the prosecution, a petition was filed on that very date for admitting certain seizure lists into evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act in view of the fact that the I.O. who prepared those seizure lists was dead. The defence again raised an objection against the said prayer for prosecution and the learned Magistrate fixed 2-8-91 as the date of hearing. The matter was heard on 2-8-91 and order was reserved till 5-8-91. The learned Magistrate fixed 5-8-91 as the date not only for passing his order on the question of admissibility of the seizure lists but also for examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and also for D.Ws., if any. The said question was finally decided by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 5-8-91 and the documents were admitted in evidence as prayed for by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate asked the accused persons to get ready on that very date for their examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. for the purpose of expeditious disposal of the case. At that stage, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate praying for adjournment of the examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. on the ground that he would file a criminal revision case before this Court against the order passed on that date. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate granted the adjournment so as to enable the accused persons to obtain the stay order, if any, from this Court. The accused petitioner, however, filed the instant revisional application on 20-8-91 praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding and did not keep it confined to the order dated 5-8-91 whereby the learned Magistrate negatived his objection against the admissibility of certain documents under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.