KULDEEP CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II), Rohru, Distt. Shimla, dated 5.8.2000.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy, few facts may be noticed:

(3.) Notice of the cancellation report was given to complainant Dinesh Kumar. On notice the complainant objected to the cancellation of the case. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and asked the complainant to produce his evidence. Statement of the complainant was recorded on 15.9.1998. Further time was sought by the complainant to produce the remaining evidence which was granted and the case was directed to be listed on 24.114998. In the meanwhile, a revision petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 11,10.1999 observed that the complainant should have been asked, by the learned Magistrate to give list of witnesses he proposed to examine and those witnesses should have been examined on State expenses as it was a State case. For this reason, order of the learned Magistrate giving time to the complainant to produce the remaining evidence was set aside. The matter was sent back to the learned trial Magistrate with a direction to dispose of the case in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge.