BHAGAT RAM Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of Sessions Judge, Shimla, dated 24/08/1993 whereby the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Rural), Shimla, in proceedings under Sections 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been set aside and a direction has been issued for continuing the same afresh. The matter rises in the circumstances being set out briefly hereafter.

(2.) The security proceedings were started on 15-7-1991 at the instance of the first respondent. Notices to the petitioners were issued for 29-7-1991 under Section 111 (of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They appeared before the Court on this date, though they filed their reply on 20-8-1991. The proceedings were adjourned to 9-9-1991 for the evidence of the first respondent. On this date, the witnesses were not present and adjournment was sought for and was granted. On 23-9-1991, the Presiding Officer could not deal with the matter being busy in law and order duty and the case was adjourned to 4-10-1991 for the evidence of the first respondent. On this date, the witnesses were present but the petitioners were not present, hence the case was adjourned to 22-10-1991. On this date, adjournment was sought by the petitioners and on the next date the evidence was to be procured by them at their own responsibility. On 12-11-1991, the Presiding Officer was on tour and the case was adjourned to 17-12-1991. On this date, the case was listed for further orders. The witnesses were not present, therefore, the case was adjourned to 8-1-1992. No witness was present on this date and the case was adjourned to 24-2-1992 and the witnesses were summoned through notices. On this date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 4-3-1992 for further orders. On 4-3-1992, no one was present and summons were issued to the petitioners for 23-3-1992. On this date, the petitioners were not present and they were summoned for 7-4-1992. Again, they were not present on this date and were summoned through bailable warrants for 16-4-1992 on which date the petitioners were not present, though the Presiding Officer was also busy with some other work and the case could not be taken up. It was listed for 24-4-1992 for further orders. On this date also, the petitioners were not present and they were directed to appear on 28-4-1992 by way of notices. The matter was taken on 19-11-1992 by another Presiding Officer and the parties were summoned for 30-12-1992 when the case was again adjourned to 15-1-1993. On 15-1-1993, the Presiding Officer ordered the closure of the proceedings for lapse of six months' period. He also recorded that he did not find cogent reasons to proceed with the matter.

(3.) The order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge who came to the conclusion that the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the facts, particularly to the fact that the case had been adjourned on various dates on the request of the petitioners and not for any fault of the first respondent. The fault was with the Magistrate for not concluding the proceedings within time. In these circumstances, the order has been set aside and a direction for dealing with the matter afresh was given to the Magistrate.