MOTI SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision under sections 327 and 401 Cr. P.C. filed by Motisingh and others against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, dated 7.12 1977 by which the application of the petitioners for holding a denovo trial was rejected.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition may be briefly stated as follows:-

(3.) The petitioners arc facing trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi under sections 307, 325 read with section 149 I.P.C. In the course of trial the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was heard and recorded by Shri S. Rai the than Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, but later on he was transferred to some other place or post and was succeeded by Shri B. D. Johri who also was transferred after some time to some other place and Shri G. L. Gupta succeeded him as Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. During the pendency of the trial section 326 of the Code Criminal Procedure 1973 was amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance 1976, Ordinance No. 12 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance which came into force on 22. 11. 1976 and which was subsequently replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1977 dated 13th Sept., 1977) hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act. By virtue of this amendment, the successor Judge was empowered to act on the evidence heard and recorded either in whole or in part by his predecessor-in-office. After the coming into the force of the Ordinance a request was made to Shri B. D. Johri on behalf of the petitioners for re-hearing the prosecution witnesses and for recording their evidence again as the amendment made in section 326 of the Code Criminal Procedure by the Ordinance was not retrospective The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the prayer. Later on when the Ordinance was replaced by the Amendment Act, 1977, a fresh application by the petitioners was filed on 18.10.1977 for demanding a denovo trial on the ground that section 326 Cr. P.C. was not amended retrospectively and the right of the petitioners to get their case decided by Judge, who partly heard and recorded the evidence has not been taken away. This application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge Shri G.L. Gupta on 7.12.1979. Aggrieved by the order of rejection the petitioners have come up in revision to this Court as stated above.