AVTAR SINGH Vs. DALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the currency of this Revision, Avtar Singh, petitioner, seeks the reversal of order dated 24-11-2001 propounded by Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in a case entitled State Versus Daljit Singh, which is proceeded on a police report. By the aforesaid order, the evidence of the prosecution has been closed, which reads as under :

(2.) Facts relevant for the disposal of this Revision put tersely are that, on a complaint initiated by Avtar Singh, petitioner, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, which stood endorsed to Police Station, Pacca Danga, Jammu for necessary action under S. 156(3) Cr. P.C. A case under S. 420/406/467/471, RPC stood registered and investigation ensued. On the conclusion of the investigation, challan against S. Daljit Singh, accused, came to be presented in the Court and subsequently, transferred to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge for trial in accordance with the law. After framing charge against the accused vide order dated 30-12-1997 and recording the plea of the accused on charge framed, stated the case for recording the prosecution witnesses. Till the closure of the evidence by the impugned order dated 24-11-2001, the prosecution examined only one witness, S. Avtar Singh, complainant, during a space of about four years. During the aforesaid period, as many as 35 sessions were fixed for recording evidence, but the prosecution did not make endeavour to produce and examine the witnesses and exhausted the list of ten witnesses, who happened to be from Jammu, as is elicited from the memo of challan.

(3.) According to Mr. Surinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the prosecution witnesses appeared a number of times, but the statements could not be recorded due to absence of the accused and non-availability of his counsel. The delay in the examination of the witnesses is attributed to the absence of the accused, who happens to be a resident of Amritsar and not to the prosecution. His further contention is that, an application was also preferred under S. 540, Cr. P.C. by the petitioner to summon and examine one Gurdeep Kour, whose statement was recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C. but her name did not figure in the challan due to inadvertence of the investigating Agency. The said application is yet to be decided. The objection has since been filed by the accused. That the order of the closure of evidence has been passed by the trial Court without adverting to the record of the file and has, thus, occasioned a serious prejudice to the petitioner and resulted in grave failure of justice.