AJAIB SINGH BIRAK Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by complainant-Ajaib Singh Birak, whereby he has challenged the order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur on 2.3.2005, vide which the prosecution evidence was closed by order.

(2.) FIR was registered on 9.6.1995, against the accused-respondents on the basis of a complaint made by Harbans Singh, father of the petitioner. Said FIR was for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused- respondents, wherein sixteen persons were cited as witnesses. Charges were framed by the trial Court on 15.1.1998. The case was, thereafter, fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case, whereas three could not be examined as they had died. The remaining eight persons, who were yet to be examined as witnesses, were only official witnesses, like ASIs, Constables and Record keepers. Time and again, summons were issued to them, but they did not put in appearance before the trial Court. On 21.7.2004, no PW was present. However, Jatinder Kumar was duly served for the said date, but he did not come present. Accordingly, trial Court summoned him through bailable warrants for 14.9.2004. The remaining witnesses were also summoned for the said date. On 14.9.2004, one Bhajan Singh, Deed Writer, came present, but he could not be examined as the concerned clerk from the office of Sub Registrar had not brought the summoned record. Accordingly, the trial was adjourned to 3.11.2004 and the concerned clerk from the office of Sub Registrar along with the record was summoned. Bhajan Singh was bound down for the next date. This time also, the remaining PWs were also summoned. On 12.1.2005, Bhajan Singh was again present, but he could not be examined as the summoned the record had not been received. Bhajan Singh was again bound down for the next date and record was summoned and so also the remaining PWs. On 2.2.2005, Bhajan Singh once again came present in the trial Court, but for want of record, he could not be examined. The concerned clerk from the office of Sub Registrar was served for that date, but he had not come present. Said clerk was, thereafter, summoned through bailable warrants for 2.3.2005. Bhajan Singh was also bound down for that date. Constable Harvinder Singh, who stood served for that date did not come present. He was summoned through bailable warrants. ASI Manjit Singh, Didar Singh and Inspector Labh Singh were also ordered to be summoned through SSP, Jalandhar. It was, however, made clear that it shall be the last chance. On 2.3.2005, no PW came present. Learned APP tendered some documents. In view of the fact that the case was lingering for evidence of the prosecution for more than seven years, as the charges were framed on 15.1.1998 and the prosecution, in spite of availing ample opportunities to conclude its entire evidence, failed to do the same, the trial Court found no bona fide reason to further adjourn the case for recording of the evidence of the prosecution. Accordingly, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order. The said order is under challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his father Harbans Singh, who had lodged the FIR had since died and accordingly, the petitioner being the legal heir, was entitled to file the present revision. Further that the trial Court erred in closing the evidence of the prosecution for no fault of the complainant. Only official witnesses remained to be examined. If those witnesses were not appearing despite their service, the trial Court should have adopted coercive measures by issuing warrants of arrest to enforce their attendance in the Court. Counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that the trial of the case was being prolonged for no fault of the accused. The charges were framed on 15.1.1998 and over a span of more than seven years, the prosecution could not conclude the recording of its entire evidence.