HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) BANSI Lal, whose wife Santosh Kumari died in a motor vehicle accident, has approached this Court in criminal revision No.62/2005, for setting
aside judgment dated 28.02.2005 of learned City Judge, Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Jammu, acquitting Abdul Rashid, respondent, in
F.I.R. No. 220/2001 registered by Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu, under
Sections 279, 337/304 -A RPC (short, for Ranbir Penal Code).
(2.) FACTS , necessary for the disposal of this petition, are these:-
Police Post, Narwal, received a reliable information on 29.11.2001 that at about 7.30 p.m. a matador bearing registration number JK02N -8165 had been driven rashly and negligently, while proceeding from Narwal towards Panama Chowk, when it met with an accident and turned turtle, resulting into the death of its conductor, Manohar Singh, and one Santosh Kumari besides causing injuries to other occupants. After investigation of the case, final police report was submitted to the learned Magistrate, who framed charge against the respondent under Sections 279, 337/304 -A RPC vide his order dated 07.10.2002. Feeling aggrieved of the charge, respondent preferred 561 -A Cr.P.C. No.05/2003 in this Court, which was, however, dismissed with the observation that trial Court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously and shall endeavour to decide the case within one year from the date of appearance of the parties before it. Learned trial Magistrate directed prosecution to lead its evidence. Bansi Lal appeared before the Court on 17.11.2004 but his statement was recorded only in part and he was allowed to depart without having been bound down to appear again. It appears that the case was thereafter tried hurriedly by the learned trial Court, presumably under the impression that the matter had to be decided, in all circumstances, within a period of one year. Learned Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence on 12.02.2005 and thereafter passed an order of acquittal of the respondent on 28.02.2005.
The State does not appear to have questioned the acquittal of the respondent.
(3.) BANSI Lal, in his petition, pleads that the trial Court had not made any endeavour to summon the prosecution witnesses and take coercive
process for procuring the attendance of material witnesses. He submits
that the list of witnesses comprised, inter alia, of government servants
whose evidence had been closed by the learned Magistrate in a slip shod
manner. He seeks setting aside of the order impugned in this petition.
This revision has, thus, arisen in the circumstances detailed hereinabove.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.