RISHI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a revision petition against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge Sonepat, whereby he in an appeal against conviction, set aside the conviction and sentences passed on the accused remanding the case for fresh trial in accordance with law and in compliance of his direction s given in his judgment. The petitioner Rishi Parkash was employed as a Cashier in a cooperative Society. He was accused of having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 21,448.93, which has two parts. A sum of Rs. 7,371.93 was said to be cash in hand with him in June, 1975. The remaining amount is said to have been recovered by him from some members of the society without accounting for those sums in the concerned bank and society papers. On these allegations the petitioner was tried by the trial Magistrate for offence under sections 408, 468, 471, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate held him guilty for the said offences. His co-accused Munshi Singh was held guilty for offences under section 408 read with section 109, I.P.C. He was awarded various terms of imprisonment Against this conviction and sentences, he preferred an appeal to the Court of Session which was disposed of by the impugned order sought to be revised.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge has observed that remand was necessitated on three grounds :

(3.) SO far as the first point is concerned, it is patent from the record that the prosecution was given a number of opportunities to produce its evidence and then that last opportunity was given to it on 2.3.1982. Evidence was to be examined on 30.4. 1982. On that day, the prosecution did not examine its remaining evidence. The Court was thus constrained to close evidence. No fault could thus be found at he conduct of the Magistrate in closing the prosecution case. It is besides the point whether material evidence by the prosecution had been left out or not. The Court has otherwise inherent powers to call a witness as a Court witness to elicit information from him pertaining to the case. That power can even be exercised at the appellate state. Thus, on the first point no necessity arose for the case to be remanded for fresh trial. The learned Sessions Judge was in error.