RASULAN Vs. NOOR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has arisen out of a Revision Petition presented before the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur against an order dated: 21 -12 -2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur whereby the evidence of the complainant has been closed in a complaint.

(2.) THE complainant was leading evidence. Petitioner sought indulgence of the court summoning of two witnesses namely Doctor Rajinder Parshad and Abdual Majid constable and also sought permission to deposit the witnesses expenses. The court permitted to deposit the witness expenses and summons were issued by the trail court securing the presence of the witnesses. The complainant also examined Mst. Roshanh, Nama and Kali besides herself in support of her complaint. The trial court appears to have issued numerous summons for procuring the presence of PWs Dr. Rajinder Parshad and Abdul Majid constable but their presence could not be procured. A report was received from the Medical Suptd. District Hospital, Udhampur that Mr. Rajinder Parshad has been transferred to Jammu and summons, thus, could not be executed. After receipt of this report, the trial court directed the complainant to file fresh address of the Dr. Rajinder Parshad within two days enabling the court to summon him. On 21 -12 -2000, the evidence of the complainant was closed on account of failure of the complainant for filing of fresh address of the said witness. The complainant thereafter was fixed for recording the statements of the accused under Section 342 Cr. P.C.

(3.) THE order of closing the evidence of the complainant was questioned by means of Revision Petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur who after appreciating the dispute has made a reference to this court recommending therein to quash the order of the trial Magistrate for the reason that the order of the trial court is not in accordance with law, and that the trial court ought to have made an effort to summon the witnesses rather imposing it upon the complainant.