DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the case against the petitioner is pending since 1976. In the year 1978, some witnesses were examined by the prosecution but the accused petitioner could not cross examine them. He moved an application under section 243 (2) Cr. PC when he entered upon his defence. His application was allowed but he was directed to deposit Rs. 200.00 on account of the expenses of the witnesses. He did not deposit the same as he was not in a position to do so and applied before the Magistrate for deleting this condition. This was not allowed and even his revision before the Sessions Judge failed and was dismissed on 15-2-90. Now he has approached this Court under section 482 Cr. PC. He has placed reliance on 1974 RLW 255, wherein it was held when recall of witness is necessary then the expenses are to be borne by the State.

(2.) I have considered the contention. The main hurdle in the case is the delay. The case has been pending for a very long time and it appears that for last ten years nothing has been done, which could be said to be a step in the progress of the case. The petitioner was not able to cross-examine the witnesses as his counsel was not present and when another opportunity has already been granted, the same should not be denied merely because he could not deposit the expenses. While deleting the condition about paying expenses, it is necessary to impose certain other condition for effecting service on the witnesses. I ascertained from the learned counsel for the petitioner and he stated that all witnesses except one PW 4 P.R. Rai are at Ajmer. In the circumstances opportunity for calling this witness P. R. Rai cannot be given because this would lead to further delay in the case. As for the other witnesses, learned counsel for the petitioner under takes that if Dasti summons are given to him, he will serve the same. This would appear to be some what irregularity but the learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to serve the witnesses and see to it that they appear before the court. In case he does not serve the witness, further opportunity to produce the witnesses for the purposes of cross examination shall not be given.

(3.) With these observations the petition is allowed and the the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Ajmer is directed to decide the case expeditiously. Petition Allowed.