JASBIR SINGH Vs. SUB DIV MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of the order dated 17. 1. 1996 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur sahib whereby the learned Magistrate refused adjournment sought by the petitioner and closed his evidence. The petitioner is the complaint, who filed a complaint against the accused-respondent under Section 433 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal case was fixed for recording evidence of the petitioner- complainant. The petitioner had, in fact, taken steps for summoning the bank official as prosecution witness by depositing the due amount towards diet money etc. , but the same was not brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, who by the impugned order declined to further adjourn the case by considering the fact that eight opportunities had already been allowed to the petitioner to lead his evidence and also that necessary steps for the deposit of diet money etc. had not been taken. The learned magistrate ordered the evidence of the complainant to be treated as closed and fixed the case for defence evidence. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the complainant has filed this petition.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued to the respondent, who has put in appearance. I have heard learned counsel for the both the parties.

(3.) 1 have peruse the documents placed on the record of this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record documents showing that necessary steps for deposit of diet money etc. had been taken and the learned Magistrate himself noted in the order sheets dated 28. 2. 1994, 12. 5. 1994 and 28. 7. 1994 that the office Ahlmad was negligent in carrying out the directions of the learned Magistrate. There appears to be considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the fact of necessary compliance regarding the summoning of the witness been brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, he would not have declined adjournment and would not have closed the evidence of the complainant. It appears that the office was somehow at fault in not bringing to the notice of the learned Magistrate the factum of the necessary steps having been taken already by the complainant. It is settled view of law that no one should be allowed to suffer for the mistake of the court or the agency of the court. The principles of natural justice require that nobody should be allowed to suffer on a cause for which he is not responsible. In the interest of justice, the learned Magistrate should have, after verifying the facts, allowed a reasonable opportunity to the complainant to produce his evidence. In view of the fact that the steps had already been taken, the evidence of the petitioner ought not to have been closed and the petitioner-complainant should not have been deprived of opportunity to lead evidence in support of its case.