SALMAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Crimial P.C. against the order dated 14.5.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur District vide which the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed against the order dated 23.4.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District in Criminal Original Case No.68/2011 for the offence under Sec. 3/25 and 27 Arms Act dismissing the application of the petitioner under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The facts leading to the necessity of filing the application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. for recalling the witnesses in short are that on 1.10.1998 and 2.10.1998, the petitioner is stated to have hunted two black bucks at village Kankani by using two revolver i.e. (i) Revolver S. & W. .32 Bore, Number 87011 made in U.S.A. and (ii) .22 Bore Rifle No.2118. He was accused for not having a valid arms license on the date of the alleged incident. An FIR was registered on 15.10.1998. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences under Sec. 3/25 and 27 Arms Act and charges too were framed accordingly. An application for amendment of the charges was filed by the prosecution which was dismissed. However, a revision petition was filed against the order dismissing the application for amendment of the charges before the High Court. At the same time, an application under Sec. 311 of the Crimial P.C. was moved by the prosecution on 14.08.2006 and another application under Sec. 91, 173(8) read with Sec. 242 of the Crimial P.C. was filed on 30.08.2006. Reply to these applications were filed by the petitioner on 05.09.2006 and 18.09.2006 respectively. Before the said applications could be decided, the record of the trial court was called by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.858/2006. Thereafter, the record was received back on 25.05.2013. On receipt of the said record, the evidence of the prosecution commenced once again. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by an order dated 15.01.2014. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed on 08.12.2014 and the matter was fixed for arguments. The final arguments were heard on 09.02.2015, which continued up till 10.02.2015. The learned Magistrate fixed 25.02.2015 for pronouncement of the judgment in the matter. Meanwhile, before the judgment could be pronounced, an application for hearing the above mentioned two applications dated 14.08.2006 & 30.08.2006 was moved on 20.02.2015 by the prosecution and on the date fixed for pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Magistrate is stated to have informed the petitioners counsel that four applications moved by the prosecution in the year 2006 are still pending and the same have to be decided before the judgment could be pronounced in the matter. Reply to all the applications were filed in the year 2006 itself and thereafter, the prosecution never brought up the applications. After 9 years, on 03.03.2015, the trial court allowed two out of the four applications:

(3.) The orders of the trial court allowing the application of the prosecution under Sec. 91 and 173(8) Crimial P.C. read with Sec. 242 Crimial P.C. and 311 Crimial P.C. was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No.606/2015. The said Criminal Misc. Petition was dismissed by this Court as under:-