PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter was placed before me on 3.9.1997 for admission. Mr. Champawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.R. Patel, learned Public Prosecutor for the State were heard for some time. Two contentions were raised on that day by the learned counsel Shri Champawat for the petitioner (i) that the petitioner was not rash and negligent in his driving, and (ii) regarding the identity of the accused which was not proved. Going through the reasons assigned by the Courts below I was not prima facie convinced that the Courts below committed any error, but the record from the Courts below was called for on 22.8.1997 by Hon'ble Mohd. Yamin, J. and Mr. Champawat, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to go through the same. He, therefore, requested this Court to put up this case on 5.9.1997 as part heard. From 4.9.1997 to 12.9.1997 I was to sit in a Division Bench with my learned brother A.K. Singh, J. as per the roster effected by the learned Chief Justice on 2.2.1997. Therefore, in my order dated 3.9.1997 passed in this petition, I ordered the office to place this matter alongwith other part heard matters on 5.9.1997 at 10.30 a.m. On a separate board with a notice on the board that after the part heard matters of the single Bench are over this Court (B.J. Sethna, J.) will sit in a Division Bench with Hon'ble A.K. Singh, J. and hear the Division matters. Office was also directed to place all part heard matters before this Court in future also on the fixed date for hearing. Accordingly, this matter was ordered to be placed on 5.9.1997 as part heard before this Court on a separate Board at 10.30 a.m. However, this matter was not placed before me on 5.9.1997 as per the order passed by the learned Chief Justice on administrative side on 3.9.1997 on the submission made by the office, which reads as under :-

(2.) ON 8.9.1997 when I was sitting in a Division Bench along with my learned brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Singh, Mr. Champawat mentioned in the open Court at 10.30 a.m. that this petition filed by him on behalf of the petitioner-accused, which was ordered to be placed before this Court on 5.9.1997 as part heard along with other part heard matters was not placed by the office though this Court specifically directed the office to place this matter along with other part heard matters on 5.9.1997. Mr. Champawat also stated that the petitioner-accused is in jail after both the Courts below convicted him for the offence under section 304-A IPC. Mr. Champawat further stated that he has gone through the record and he would like to address this Court on 9.9.1997. After hearing Mr. Champawat, I passed the order in open Court on 8.9.1997 and directed the office to put this matter on 9.9.1997 before this Court on a separate Board along with other part heard matters. It was also stated that those matters will be taken after the Court work of Division Bench is over and in case the Court work of Division Bench was not over then it will be taken up at 4.30 p.m. The office was also directed to place all other part heard matters on 9.9.1997 as ordered earlier in this matter. In spite of this order the office did not place this revision petition and other part heard matters on a separate Board on 9.9.1997.

(3.) THUS , this petition and other part heard matters were not placed before this Court on 9.9.1997 also which were ordered to be placed on 5.9.1997. On 11.9.1997, this revision petition along with other part heard matters were placed on a separate Board before this Court as per the order passed by learned Chief Justice at 3.30 p.m. as Hon'ble A.K. Singh, J. was sitting with Hon'ble Shri M.P. Singh, J. in a Division Bench from 3.30 p.m. onwards and taking up Division Bench matters on 11.9.1997. However, those matters could not be taken up on 11.9.1997 as a senior advocate of the State Shri Satish Chand Agarwal expired and the Court was declared closed on that day. Thereafter, this criminal revision petition along with other part heard matters were placed before this Court at 3.30 p.m. on 12.9.1997. When this petition was called out from the order sheet I found that in spite of the specific order passed by this Court on 3.9.1997 and 8.9.1997 the office did not place this matter along with other part heard matters. Thereupon, Deputy Registrar (Judicial) Mr. Madani was called and asked to explain as to why the order passed by this Court on 3.9.1997 to 8.9.1997 were not complied with. He submitted that after the first order was passed on 3.9.1997 a submission was made by him on that very day (i.e. 3.9.1997) on which Hon'ble Chief Justice passed an order, which I have quoted earlier. It was pointed out to him that not to follow the judicial order would amount to contempt. It was also noticed by this Court that all other part heard criminal revisions and writ petition were placed before this Court on 11.9.1997 at 3.30 p.m. on a separate Board except one writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/96. Hence, Mr. Madani was called upon to explain as to why that writ petition was not placed before this Court. He submitted that the said matter was disposed of. Therefore, Mr. Madani was directed to produce the original papers of the said writ petition which were produced by him on 12.9.1997. Then Mr. Champawat was heard for about 15 minutes, but the Court time was over at 4.30 p.m. therefore, the matters were ordered to be heard further on Monday i.e. on 15.9.1997 at 10.30 a.m. and the papers of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/96 were ordered to be kept with this case. Accordingly, they are kept along with the papers of this petition. Today, Mr. Champawat addressed this Court at length and he took me through the record. Going through the record he was able to make out a prima facie case for admission of this revision petition. Hence, this criminal revision petition is admitted.