MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against against the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge(Fast Tack), Balotra whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant has been allowed.

(2.) THE contentions of the present petitioner are that they are facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Balotra for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Charges have been framed against the present petitioners on 21.2.2011. THEreafter, the witnesses including witness no.10 Hadmat Singh have been called for. In spite of 25 occasions, this witness -Hadmat has not appeared before the court below and the trial court has closed the prosecution evidence on 15.5.2012 and the matter was posted on 21.5.2012 for recording the statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. but the same could not be recorded. On the next date of hearing, the complainant moved an application for summoning the witness Hadmat Singh and the learned trial court, without appreciating the facts that on previous dates, 25 opportunities have been given to produce this witness, again allowed the application filed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. which is against the settled proposition of law. THE petitioners are facing trial since long and they are being harassed.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order.