J.D.A. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard

(2.) By his impugned order dated 15.9.1994, the learned Magistrate terminated the criminal proceedings against the accused Smt. Savita for offences under Sections 31 & 32 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act 1982 on the ground that service upon the accused could not be effected despite sending process to her on six occasions.

(3.) The impugned order, as passed by the learned Magistrate could have been served by applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Others, 1996 (4) S.C.C. 33 , but the said decision.was reconsidered by the Apex Court latteron in 1996(6) SCC 775 and it was clarified that in the cases of trial of summons cases by a Magistrate the trials would be considered to have commenced when the accused who appear or are brought before the Magistrate, are asked under Sec. 251, whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make. Since, in the instant case, the accused did neither ever appear nor was brought before the Magistrate and was not examined under ., no trial against her could be considered to have commenced. That being so, the present case squarely falls within the purview of the clarification issued by the Apex Court in its letter decision in the same case (supra).