MOHAMMAD ISHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Code') by the defendant-accused challenges order dated 13.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra remanding the case to the Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate has committed an error in recording the statements of the defendant-accused under Section 313 of the Code which has resulted in prejudice to the defendant- accused.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that an FIR No. 84 dated 15.4.1993 was registered against the defendant- accused under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Shahbad levelling allegations that the defendant-accused who was the driver of bus bearing No. RJ-14P-1835 belonging to Rajasthan Roadways had driven the bus in rash and negligent manner with a high speed. It rammed into one Bullet Motorcycle bearing No. HRD-759 from back side which resulted into the death of one person who was pillion rider on Bullet Motorcycle. After trial, the Magistrate found the accused guilty of offences punishable under sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The defendant-accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- along with other punishments. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra who has ordered the remand of case on account of serious error committed in recording the statement of the defendant-accused under section 313 of the Code. The view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is discernible from the operative part of the impugned order, which reads as under :-

(3.) SHRI G.P.S. Nagra, learned State counsel has pointed out that the error committed in recording the statement under section 313 of the Code is by the Magistrate and the defendant-accused cannot claim acquittal on that account because prosecution has brought on record overwhelming evidence to substantiate the charge. The learned State Counsel has further pointed out that the prolongation of trial by itself is no ground to claim acquittal. For the afore-mentioned proposition, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Shayami v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) RCR(Crl.) 673 and further argued that each case has to be seen on its own facts and no general principles of universal application could be laid down.