SARDUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARDUL Singh petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, on November 11, 1983. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and remanded the case to the trial Magistrate for examining the accused afresh under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and deciding the case according to law. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in revision.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to recount the facts. I feel that the petitioner is well justified in challenging the said order on the ground that neither there was any justification for ordering retrial nor can the prosecution be allowed to fill in the lacuna left in the case. While ordering his retiral, what weighted with the lower appellate court was that the petitioner was not properly examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. I am not impressed by this kind of reasoning adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Om Parkash 1969 P.L.R. 793, the retrial was not ordered as a period of more than 3 -1/2 years had elapsed between the stating of the trial and the order of the High Court. In the present case, the prosecution had been launched against the petitioner in the year 1979. The impugned order was passed on September 2, 1985 i.e. more than six years after the initiation of the prosecution. In view of the principle laid down in Om Parkash's case (supra) that the trial of the petitioner was vitiated by reason of the material facts having not been put to him under section 313, Cr.P.C. it would not be conducive in the interest of justice to order retrial in view of the fact that the proceedings against him have already continued for more than six years.

(3.) FOR these reasons, the revision is allowed, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be acquitted. Revision allowed