GOPALAN PRABHAKARAN Vs. MADHAVAN ANANDAN
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) P. W. 1 in Calendar Case No. 171 of 1966 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally is the revision petitioner. The case was one charge sheeted by the Karunagappally Police under S.279, 337 and 338 I. P. C. and also under S.3(1), 89(a) and (b), 118(a) and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
(2.) The prosecution case was that the accused not possessed of a driving licence, drove a car BMP 7203 on 23rd October 1966 along the Puthiacavu - Cathrikadavu road and by rash and negligent driving knocked down 4 persons including the revision petitioner who were standing on the parapet wall of a culvert. The car came at excessive speed and as a result of the impact, serious injuries were sustained by all the victims. In the charge sheet there were 15 witnesses on the whole, including the injured. Witnesses numbers 5 to 7 are independent witnesses and witness number 8 is a person who was travelling in the car. On 24th January 1967 all these eye witnesses were present in the court for examination. But the Assistant Public Prosecutor did not turn up and so the witnesses were discharged. The case was adjourned to 2nd February 1967. On that day, the Prosecutor was absent and no witnesses were produced even though the prosecution had undertaken to produce them. The learned Magistrate accordingly ordered summons to the witnesses and adjourned the case to 13th February 1967. On 13th February 1967 the accused was present but the Prosecutor was absent. Witness numbers 13 to 15 in the charge sheet were present Witness No. 13 was discharged and the other two witnesses being Police Officers were examined by the learned Magistrate as P. Ws. 1 and 2. Summons was again ordered to the other witnesses and the case was adjourned to 23rd February 1967. On 23rd February 1967 the accused was present but the Prosecutor was absent. No witness turned up. So the case was adjourned for further steps to 24th February 1967. On 24th February 1967 also the Prosecutor was absent. The accused was accordingly acquitted under S.251A(11) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) The learned Magistrate observes in his order:-
"The only witnesses examined in this case are P. Ws. 1 and 2, the Investigating Officers. Witnesses Nos. 1 to 4 who appeared before court had to be discharged as the Prosecutor was absent. In fact the Prosecutor was consistently absent on all the posting dates of this case. On the date when P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined also the Prosecutor as absent and these witnesses examined themselves. On that day the Medical Officer, witness No. 13 in the chargesheet was present pursuant to summons. But he had to be discharged as there was nobody to examine him on behalf of the prosecution. As there is no evidence regarding the occurrence I find the accused not guilty and acquit him under S.251A(11) Cr. P. C.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.