ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioners, named above, against the orders dated 29th November, 2004, 30th November, 2004 and 1st December, 2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 46 of 1999. By order dated 29th November, 2004, the learned Magistrate while rejected the objection, raised by the petitioners regarding admissibility of a document, filed by the complainant at the stage of defence, also rejected the time petition, filed by the accused-petitioners to grant one day's time to examine one of the defence witnesses and closed the defence evidence. Further by order dated 30th November, 2004, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition, filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, by order dated 1st December, 2004 the learned Magistrate while rejected the prayer of the accused-petitioners for passing necessary order at that stage as to whether the document in question will be considered as evidence and in the alternative summoning the original document and maker of the said entry, allowed the accused-petitioners a fortnight time to challenge the orders dated 29th November, 2004 and 30th November, 2004 before the High Court.

(2.) Opposite party No. 2 has appeared and opposed the prayer. According to him, the petitioners want to delay the proceeding as they have earlier lost at various stages up to the Supreme Court. Only with a view to linger the proceeding, one or other application is being preferred by the accused-petitioners to defeat the purpose.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that 27th November, 2004 was the date fixed for examination of one of the defence witnesses, namely, Sri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Which is most vital in the present case. The case could not be taken up on the said date as the learned Judicial Magistrate was absent. 29th November, 2004 was the next date fixed. On the said date, though the defence witness Sri Naresh Kumar Gupta was present, he could not be examined, the lawyer of the accused being absent from the Court on the said date. It was submitted that though prayer for one day's adjournment was made on 29th November, 2004, for the purposes of examining the defence witness Sri Naresh Kumar Gupta, it was not allowed.