STATE Vs. SANJEEV PANDITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Reference has been received from learned C.J.M. Jammu, recommending quashment of the interim order of 20th March, 2005 passed by concerned Judicial Magistrate in the above captioned case, whereunder prosecution evidence has been closed. The Government Counsel supports it on the ground that reference is well placed while Counsel of the accused opposes for the reason that it tends to take away a right that stands otherwise vested in the accused under impugned order.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel, gone through the records, and considered the matter. It appears that on 8th of March, 2003, the concerned police instituted a case against the accused persons namely Sandeep Pandita and Shambu nath with the allegation that on 24th of December, 2002, they subjected complainant -1, Pran Nath to illegal restraint, and while beating him inflicted injuries also. On receipt of report, police registered the case being No: 27/03 Under Sections 323/341 -RPC and conducted investigations, which ultimately culminated into institution of the case against accused. On 14th of June, 2003, proceedings Under Section 242, Cr.p.c. were conducted, and accused pleading not guilty, prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. Till 4th of august, 2004, they produced three of the six listed witnesses, remaining ones being the concerned Doctor, the Investigating officer and S.H.O. of the concerned police station. Vide interim order dated 8/10/2004, last and final opportunity for production of remaining witnesses was given to the prosecution, but on following date, i.e. on 19th of October, 2004, while I/O and concerned Doctor were present, the Advocate of the accused did not appear and witnesses were returned un -examined. On 10th of November 2004 when the matter was posted next, the said witnesses were not present and learned trial Magistrate directed issuance of process to I/O and posted the matter for Prosecution evidence, along -with application of prosecution to summon the Doctor witness also. On next date i.e. 14th of January, 2005, while accepting aforesaid application the trial magistrate directed prosecution to produce the remaining witnesses but ultimately closed their evidence on 24th of March, 2004 with the observation that despite last opportunity, the prosecution had failed to produce the witnesses. Feeling aggrieved thereby the state assailed the said order before learned C.J.M., to have it set aside on the ground that it was passed without application of mind and was un -warranted under law, who while agreeing with them, made the reference in hand with aforesaid recommendation, mainly on the ground that impugned order was bad, as the learned Trial Magistrate has closed Prosecution evidence without exhausting avenues for securing attendance of the witnesses.

(3.) NOW , in so far as the principles of general nature governing this question are concerned, I feel that no hard and fast rule can be framed for general applicability, nor can the varying circumstances of different cases be en -capsuled to the point of adding anything to the available guidelines in the matter. All that can be said is that while considering the question of closure of Prosecution evidence, particularly, where the witnesses yet to be examined include important Prosecution witnesses, the trial Magistrates/courts have to perform an extremely sensitive and delicate duty by striking such a balance between right of the accused to a speedy trial and the obligation of Prosecution to have the wrong doers brought to book, as would appear reasonable and sound in given circumstances of a particular case; and the record of the proceedings in a particular case should very clearly reflect the concern of Magistrate and his consciousness of the aforesaid standard, and cogently show that while passing an order aforesaid factors were fully present to his mind.