SAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner and others are being tried for the offences under Sec. 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. There are as many as 202 cases of the same nature and a Special Magistrate has been appointed by the State Government to hold the trial in all such cases. Earlier this matter had come up before this court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 452/97 decided on 28.7.97, reported in RCC (Suppl.) 1997, page 443. The grievance of the accused person at that time was that they were not supplied with the copies of the documents under Sec. 173 Crimial P.C. in all the cases and the trial had been commenced. This court had directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur to supervise the proceedings of the cases, particularly with reference to the compliance of mandatory provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.PC. It is stated that after the above order of this court, the trial Magistrate had installed a Xerox Machine in the court room and prepared the copies of the documents under Sec. 173 Crimial P.C. and supplied the same, but in some cases only. It was submitted that since the copies of documents in all the 202 cases were not supplied to the accused persons, the trial should not have commenced and the proceedings taken earlier were not legal. The petitioner appears to have moved an application under Sec. 233 Crimial P.C. requesting the trial court to record the order of. discharge of the petitioner in all the 202 cases.

(3.) Since it was stated at bar that the learned trial court had temporarily installed a Xerox Machine in the court room itself in order to supply the copies of the documents under Sec. 173 Crimial P.C. to the accused in all these cases, this court is not prepared to accept that after having taken such pains the learned trial court did not supply such copies to the accused persons in all the cases. Since the trial court had already framed charges against the accused persons in these cases and had also recorded the statements of a number of witnesses, there was no occasion for applicability of the provisions of Sec. 239 Cr.RC. The learned trial court had observed that Rajendra Singh, accused, had deliberately absconded during the pendency of the trial and even i exemption from personal appearance was not prayed, for in the court, on his behalf. The trial court has further observed that the proceedings of the cases are being deliberately delayed by the petitioner and Rajendra Singh. This court would not like to comment upon such state of affairs. However, I again direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, jaipur City, Jaipur, as also the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur to supervise the proceedings to all these cases and to see that the trial of the accused proceeds in accordance with the provisions of law.