STATE Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By way of instant application, the prosecution, through the State of Rajasthan has sought indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for recalling the order dated 20. 04. 1998 passed in S. B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 299/97 titled as Devendra Kumar vs. State, on the grounds inter alia- (1 ). that the impugned order is contrary to facts and material available on the record and therefore, it is necessary in the interest of justice to recall/modify the same, (2) that the statutory provisions of Section 167 (5) of Cr. P. C. have been applied in the instant case in an apparent error on face looking to the facts and circumstances of the case because the aforesaid statutory provision applies in summon cases, while in the instant case the matter which was pending against the petitioner before the trial court was not a summons case, though it has been conceded by the learned counsel during the course of hearing that summary procedu-re is envisaged for trial of cases instituted under the Essential Commodities Act (for short the `e. C. Act') while in respect of substantive offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 407 and 120-B IPC the procedure with regard to trial of warrant case is attracted, (3) that the accused petitioner was enlarged on bail by the trial Court and challan was submitted after completing the investigation and at the time when the accused was enlarged on bail, the trial Court considered the matter undersection 167 (5) Cr. P. C. , (4) that the trial court had drawn the order sheet and extended the period for submitting the challan and it is not necessary for the trial court to record the reasons for extending the period for submitting the challan in the interest of justice.

(2.) BEFORE I enter upon discussions with reference to the aforesaid contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the basic aspect of the matter which has to be discussed at the first instance is as to what are those circumstances which would justify recalling of the order dated 20. 04. 1998, passed by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr. P. C.

(3.) LIKEWISE with regard to warrant cases are concerned, special reasons have to be recorded, where the prosecution is unable to conclude either the investigation or where the Court is unable to conclude the trial beyond the statutory period. I am fortified in my aforesaid observations from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar (1), where the Apex Court has highlighted the entitlement of the accused to speedy trial following the ratio of its earlier decision in A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak (2), as well as other cases.