RIKHAB CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the orders dated September 22,1990 and February 11,1991, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Siwana, by which the learned Magistrate closed the evidence of the prosecution and also, dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

(2.) ON the basis of the written report submitted by Rikhab Chand at Police Station, Siwana, a case under Sections 420 and 392 I. P. C. was registered against Shanti Lal. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the cha-llan in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Siwana, and Shanti Lal is facing trial for the offences under Sections 420 and 392 I. PC. In the 'calendar of Witnesses', the names of fifty-five witnesses were given and out of whom, thirty-four witnesses have already been examined and the remaining witnesses could not be examined as the prosecution failed to produce those witnesses. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated September 22, 1990, ordered for closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the ground that the matter relates to the year 1982 and the trial of the case has not yet been concluded and he, therefore, ordered for closure of the evidence of the prosecution and fixed the case on November 16, 1990, but, however, directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to produce evidence on the next day itself. The evidence could not be produced on that day, also, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on January 25, 1991, moved an application under Sec. 311 Cr. P. C. for summoning the witnesses mentioned in that application. That application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated February 11, 1991, by holding that the evidence of the prosecution was closed by his order dated September 22, 1990 and the last opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses but inspite of number of opportunities given to the prosecution, the witnesses could not be produced. The learned Magistrate was, also of the view that after passing of the order dated September 22, 1990, he has no jurisdiction to review his own order and the application under Sec. 311 Cr. P. C. is, therefore, not maintainable and rejected the application. It is against both these orders that the present miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner.