STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PUKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 417 of the Criminal P. C. against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the First Class Magistrate, Nasirabad on 18th june, 1983 in a case of rash driving and causing hurt thereby.

(2.) FACTS leading up to the present appeal are these : On 2nd May, 1982 at about 8 in the morning accused Pukhraj, respondent before me, is said to have been driving his car bearing No. MSW 105 which collided with a truck bearing No. RJZ 209 and thereby caused hurt to the occupants of his own car, namely, his wife, his son and his daughter. For that reason a report was presented against the respondent in the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate First Class, Nasirabad, who framed a charge on 2-1-1963 against the respondent under Section 338, Penal code (causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others) read with Section 279, Penal Code (rash driving on a public way ). The case was then adjourned to 12th March, 1983, but no prosecution witness was present. The Prosecuting Sub-Inspector sought time and he was allowed an opportunity to produce the prosecution witnesses on 24th April, 1963 and on that date as well no prosecution witness was present. Accordingly the learned Magistrate issued bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 101/-each against the prosecution witnesses niranjansingh and Bachan Singh. Dr. Sharma, the medical witness was also summoned. On the next date of hearing, namely, the 18th June, 1963 none of the prosecution witnesses was present. The learned Magistrate by his order of the same date held that Section 251a of the Criminal P. C. does not require a magistrate to issue process for the prosecution witnesses or to grant time for their production. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce its evidence and since ample opportunity had already been given the prosecution was not entitled to any further indulgence and as there was no evidence against the accused he acquitted him. It is against this judgment and order of acquittal that the State has come up in appeal.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Advocate for the respondent that this appeal is not maintainable, firstly, because it has not been presented on the direction of the State and secondly, it has not been presented by a Public Prosecutor as required by Section 417 of the Criminal P. C. It will be proper, therefore, to consider and decide this preliminary objection first.