NAIN SINGH Vs. NAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jammu dated 2/06/1990 in terms of which the evidence of the prosecution has been closed.

(2.) The short point agitated before me is whether it was the bounden duty of the trial Court to summon the prosecution witnesses by coercive process in the absence of any request or application having been made by the prosecution in this regard.

(3.) Before adverting to the legal aspect of the matter, it will be beneficial to briefly state the facts leading to the controversy. Upon a complaint lodged by the petitioner a case came to be registered against the respondents u/ S. 307, R.P.C. eventually leading to the presentation of the challan on 24/01/1985. From the record it appears that the accused were charge-sheeted on 14/01/1986 and since one of the accused had absconded, the prosecution was directed to produce witnesses on its own responsibility against other accused by virtue of order dated 31/08/1987. Since then, the trial has been at the evidence stage to be led by the prosecution and it was on 3/05/1990 that the prosecution was granted last and final opportunity of producing the remaining witnesses. At this stage or subsequent thereto there is nothing on the record to show that any attempt was made by the prosecution to express any grievance against the order dated 3/05/1990 or to comply with its terms. On the next date ( 2/06/1990), the Court passed a reasoned order closing the evidence of the prosecution. The reasons given in the order aforesaid (hereinafter called the impugned order), indicate that since 1986, the prosecution has not been able to complete the evidence and as regards the remaining three witnesses, it is pointed out that even though prosecution had summoned these witnesses on 4th and 16/05/1990 still they were not present in spite of the preemptory order dated 3/05/1990. There is nothing on the record to show that even at this stage, the prosecution made any attempt to seek assistance of the trial court for procuring the attendance of these remaining witnesses. No request or application is borne by the record in this respect.