A.N. Divecha, J. - (1.)The order of closure of proceeding passed by the learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Anand on 20th May 1992 under Sec. 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the CrPC for brief) in Criminal Case No. 1397 of 1988 is under challenge in this appeal under Sec. 378 thereof.
(2.)It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this appeal. The respondent herein was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Secs. 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC for brief) and under Secs. 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The necessary chargesheet was submitted in the court of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Anand on 17th February 1988. It came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1397 of 1988. The charge against the respondent-accused was framed on 23rd November 1989 at Exh. 3 on the record of the trial court. He did not plead guilty to the charge. It appears that the respondent accused appeared through his Advocate also and certain applications for time were made by and on behalf of his Advocate and they were granted. The proceeding shows presence of the accused on several dates. It however appears that the learned trial Magistrate gathered an impression that the process against the respondent-accused was issued but it was received back on the ground that his address was not proper. It appears that the prosecution also did not keep witnesses present. It appears that, out of exasperation, the learned trial Magistrate terminated the proceeding under Sec. 258 of the CrPC mainly on the ground that the prosecution failed to give the correct address of the accused and also on the ground that the prosecution did not keep its witnesses present.
(3.)The respondent-accused has been served. He has however not chosen to appear either in person or through any Advocate. At this stage, I tried to ascertain from learned Advocate Shri Adil Mehta present in the courtroom whether or not he could get himself prepared at a short notice so that he can be appointed to appear for the respondent-accused in this case. On his showing willingness for the purpose, I have appointed learned Advocate Shri Adil Mehta to appear for the. respondent accused in this case. Learned Advocate Shri Adil Mehta waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent accused in view of his appointment to represent the respondent-accused in appeal.