SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.S. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat Public Prosecutor for the State who has appeared to contest the revision petition in response to the show cause notice and perused the record of the trial Court. Upon perusal of the record I am satisfied that the order under revision passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur on 30.8.82 is neither illegal nor unreasonable and improper. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur afforded several opportunities to the petitioners to produce Dr. P. Dayal in their defence for purpose to proving their injuries, but the petitioners could not examine the doctor. On 3.8.82 they no doubt produced the aforesaid Doctor in the Court, but his statement could not be recorded, as the original reports were not summoned in the Court. Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, Public Prosecutor contended before me that the injury reports were produced by the petitioners alongwith their complaint which is pending trial in the same Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in which this case is pending. According to his submission, the petitioners or their learned counsel could easily got the complaint case summoned on 3.8.82 and could get the injury reports proved by the evidence of Dr. P. Dayal who was present on that day in the Court. But instead of doing this the petitioners requested the Judicial Magistrate to summon the original injury reports from Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, Knowing it fully well that the injury reports have been produced by them in the complaint case. The above contention put forward by the learned Public Prosecutor appears to be correct. Apart from this, Dr. P. Dayal was examined by the prosecution at the trial in support of its case. The petitioners could get their injury reports proved by him in cross-examination which opportunity was not availed of for reasons best known to them. Consequently, I am reluctant to hold that the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Jodhpur hastily closed the evidence of the defence without giving the accused-petitioners a reasonable opportunity to examine their defence witnesses. However, in the interest of justice I think it proper to observe while dismissing the revision petition that if the petitioners produce Dr. P. Dayal in the trial Court on the first date of hearing hereafter and cause to be summoned the original injury reports filed in the complain case, the trial court will first take down the evidence of the said Doctor and then proceed to hear final arguments in the case. With these observations the revision is dismissed. The record be sent immediately to the trial Court. Revision dismissed with observations.