PRITISH NANDEY AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the accused person in C.R. Case No. 969 of 1985 pending in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Panposh at Uditnagar, challenging the order dated 9 -6 -1989 passed in the said case by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate directing the accused person to tender evidence of the witnesses by affidavit on 29 -6 -1989 in the light of the provisions under Section 296 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THIS is a case where the accused persons are facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence of the prosecution which began on 19 -1 -1988 had been closed on 31 -1 -1959 and the case was fixed (sic) 15 -2 -1989 for accused statement and defence, evidence. It is stated by the Petitioners that the case was further adjourned to 3 -3 -1989 for the said purpose. On 3 -3 -1989 the S.D.J.M. rejected the application for adjournment of the proceedings and posted the case to 7 -3 -1989 for final argument. The learned S.D.J.M. by an order dated 3 -3 -1989 had dispensed with the examination of the accused persons in exercise of his power under Section 313(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure At this stage the accused persons being aggrieved by the order dated 3 -3 -1989 moved this Court in Criminal Misc. . Case No. 256 of 1989. The accused persons thereafter moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special leave Petition (Criminal) bearing No. 1034 of 1989 not being satisfied by order passed by the High Court here. When the said Special leave Petition No. 1034 of 1989 was listed before to Hon'ble Vacation Judge in the Supreme Court of India the Hon'ble Court disposed of the Special leave Petition on 16 -5 -1989 with the following order:

(3.) SECTION 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure for hearing of summon cases by the Magistrates. According to this section if the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 252 or of the Code of Criminal Procedure on plea of guilty, he Shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as has been produced in support of the prosecution and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his evidence.