BISWANATH BHAGAT Vs. OM PRAKASH SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is impugned in this case is the order dated November 3, 2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Crl. Revision No. 80 of 1999 holding that as more than two years have already elapsed from the date of the charge, the G. R. Case should be dropped in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma v. The State of Bihar (1998) 15 OCR (SC) 530.

(2.) THE short facts for appreciating the case are as follows: On 18.8.88, an F.I.R. was filed in Purighat Police Station alleging that the accused persons have thrown Acid on the face of the informant and he sustained grievous injuries. On the basis of such an F.I.R., G.R. Case No. 1157 of 1988 was registered and the accused persons stood charged under Sections 341 and 324, I.P.C. Charges against the accused persons were framed on 29th July, 1993. In course of trial, out of 9 charge sheeted witnesses, only 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, for the reasons best known, no action was taken for examination of the Investigating Officer. In this process, about six years passed. By order dated 30th July, 1999, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack observed : 'As the prosecution has failed to examine all the witnesses within six years, as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the case is closed to -day. Put up on 2.8.99 for accused statement.'

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 30th July, 1999, the State preferred Criminal Revision No. 80 of 1999 before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The learned Sessions Judge also agreed with the fact that there was inordinate delay and the prosecution has totally failed to discharge its duty to examine the Investigating Officer. The Sessions Judge has expressed his surprise on the fact that 'the mighty State has paraded his incapability to present his police witness before the Court below.' But then relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma's case (supra), the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that as the offences for which the accused persons had been charged, carry punishment of imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years and that as more than two years have lapsed from the date of charge, no fault can be found in the order passed by the learned Magistrate in G. R. Case No. 1157 of 1988. The said order, as has been stated earlier, is impugned in this Criminal Misc. Case invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.