JAGRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THIS petition under Section 482. Cr.P.C. is directed against the orders dated 19th June, 1997, 4th July, 1997 and 29th July, 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) Anupgarh, in criminal case No. 168/1996 State v. Jagraj Singh and Ors. whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate adjourned the hearing of the case from time to time for the purpose of disposing of the application filed by the accused -petitioners for dropping proceedings in accordance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Common cause' A Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India and Ors. 1996 Criminal Law Reporter [SC] Page 430.

(3.) I have carefully considered the above submission. It is true that the directions given by a Superior Court have to be complied with by the lower Courts sincerely and expeditiously but it cannot be denied that in complying with the directions they have to apply their mind to find out whether the case before them is squarely covered by the directions given by the Superior Court. If any accused person wants acquittal or discharge or wants revocation of the order by which cognizance was taken or proceedings were initiated against him under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he may apply to the concerned Court and then it would be the duty of the concerned Court to consider the application and decide it on merits after due application of the judicial mind. The duty to pass an order expeditiously does not dispense with the necessity of application of judicial mind by the lower Courts. A duty to act with due care and caution after applying judicial mind to the prayer made before them and brought to the notice, is not taken away by the fact that certain direction has been given to them. In the instant case it appears that prayer was made before the learned Judicial Magistrate for filing reply of the application moved by the accused -petitioners. It has been recognised as a well established principle of administration of justice that before a matter is decided against a certain party the opportunity of hearing must be given. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate was requested to grant adjournment for the purpose of filing the reply and he granted time for filing the reply. There does not appear to be anything wrong in it. The prosecution was entitled to be heard before the proceedings against the accused are dropped.