SATYANARAYAN NAYAK Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) PETITIONER has approached this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.1996 passed by the S.D.J.M., Patnagarh in G.R. Case No. 172 of 1994. Petitioner is an accused in that case. It reveals from the impugned order that at the time of trial of the G.R. Case No. 172 of 1994 on 1.3.1996 two official witnesses, namely, A.S.I. of Police of Lathore Outpost and Abhimanyu Nag, a police constable and one more witness named Antaryami Pradhan attended the Court to give their evidence as per the summons issued by the Court. A petition for adjournment was filed by the accused for long adjournment of the case on the ground that he had filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 2306 of 1994 to quash the proceeding of the G.R. Case and that he had further filed Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 148 of 1995 against the Superintendent of Police and in that connection all his relevant papers relating to the case were with the learned Advocate appearing in the High Court. Learned S.D.J.M. rejected the petition for time and directed to take up the trial and permitted the defense counsel to peruse the case record before cross -examining the witnesses and some time was allowed in that respect. Thereafter, when the case was again taken up for trial Petitioner filed another petition stating that he would challenge the aforesaid order in provisional Court and, therefore, the case should be adjourned. Learned S.D.J.M. rejected that petition too on the ground that Petitioner may move the provisional Court, but in the absence of any stay order passed by the superior Courts and in the absence of any direction given by the superior Courts not to proceed with the trial of the case he should not stay his hands when witnesses were in attendance. Accordingly, he recorded the evidence of the A.S.I. of Police and the Police Constable. That order has been challenged in the present application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the S.D.J.M. acted illegally by not allowing sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that in the absence of any specific provision for grant of stay in such a situation, learned S.D.J.M. should have utilized and invoked his ancillary power to stay the further proceeding sue mote and in support of that he places reliance on the ratio in the case of Dr. P.P. Wilson v. K. Sundarama and Anr., 72 (1991) CLT 359 and Smt. Arunakar v. Dr. Sarat Das alias Machhi, (1992) 5 OCR 630.

(3.) SECTION 309, Code of Criminal Procedure provides for power of Court to postpone or adjourn criminal proceedings and reads as hereunder: