STATE Vs. GURJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, learned additional Advocate General, for the State as well as Mr. Kamal Chopra, learned advocate, for the respondent, at length.

(2.) A challan was presented against Mr. Gurjeet Singh to stand his trial for the commission of offence under Sections 304 -A/338/337/279 RPC and 66/92 of Motor Vehicles Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the material assembled on record, framed a charge against the accused and on the latters pleading not guilty, proceeded with the recording of the prosecution evidence. The Trial Court issued process against the doctor at the first instance and directed the prosecution to produce the remaining witness. Thereafter, the Trial Court also issued process including bailable and non -bailable warrants to other witness on different dates to procure their attendance in the case and for recording evidence. At one point of time, the Trial Court took a serious note of the conduct of the prosecution for its non -cooperation in securing the attendance of the witnesses in executing coercive process on them issued by the Court. Ultimately, last opportunity was afforded to the prosecution for producing witnesses on 7 -12 -1999 and followed a pre -emptory order of final opportunity for recording prosecution witnesses and in case otherwise, will entail appropriate orders from the Court. The Trial Court, ultimately, found that the delay in non -execution of the warrants and summons, and production of witnesses in consequence thereof and attributed the delay to the prosecution and closed its evidence. This order became the subject matter of revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri, who, after hearing the parties and scanning record, found fault with the order impugned in Revision and recommended for its setting aside by making a reference vide order dated 5 -3 -2001.

(3.) THE sole grievance of the petitioner is that once the trial Court taken up the responsibility to summon the prosecution witnesses and procure their attendance for recording evidence, it becomes the duty of the Magistrate to scrutinize the case, to summon the witnesses and ensure that the attendance of the witnesses procured and their evidence recorded. The Magistrate should not proceed to close the evidence without adopting such exercise.