PATTDA PONAPPA APACHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 29th Oct. '83, passed by the CJM, Kota, granting the application of the prosecution filed u/s. 311, Cr. P. C. By the order aforesaid, the court granted permission to the prosecution to examine further witnesses.

(2.) BRIEFLY narrated the facts of the case are that the Senior Inspector, Factories and Boilers, Kota, inspected M/s. Shriram Rayons, Kota, on 3rd & 4th March, '76. After inspection, he prepared a report Ex. P. 8. The Inspector, in his statement, has admitted that the report prepared by him is Ex. P. 8. There is no other report on the record of the case. So, Ex. P. 8 is the only report of inspection by the Senior Inspector on 3rd & 4th Mar. '76. After the said inspection, a complaint was filed by the Senior Inspector in the court of CJM, Kota, against the petitioner. Along with that complaint, a list of witnesses as required by S. 204 (ii), Cr. P. C, was also filed. According to that list, Bankeylal Agarwal, Senior Inspector, Factories and Boilers alone was cited as witness. After registering the said complaint, the CJM started proceedings in this case. The prosecution examined Bankeylal Agarwal on 5th May, '78; and the complainant closed his evidence. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence. After examining the defence witnesses, the evidence of the accused was closed on 20th Aug. '83, and the case was fixed for final arguments. Then, on 27th Aug. '83, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the complainant, submitted an application u/s. 311, Cr. P. C,, and requested the court to grant them permission to adduce further evidence on behalf of the complainant. That application was accepted by the learned CJM, Kota, on 29th Oct. '83, against which, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) IN the application filed u/s. 311, Cr. P. C dated 27th Aug. '83, it has been mentioned in para-2 that Nannehkhan, Govindsingh, Ramwali and Triloki are the employees of the accused working in the factory, and they were present at the spot when the Senior INspector inspected the factory, who also made inquiries from those persons. IN para-3 of the said application it has been mentioned that the Factory INspector in his report had mentioned the names of those witnesses. IN reply to the said application the averments contained therein, were denied and it was mentioned that the said application was a mala fide one. IN the order dated 29th Oct. '83, the learned CJM has also, mentioned that the witnesses, to whom at that time, the prosecution wanted to examine, were present at the spot when the Senior INspector inspected the factory. He has also mentioned that there was mention of those witnesses in the report. It is unfortunate that factually, this is not correct. IN the application, the Assistant Public Prosecutor wrongly mentioned this fact about the presence of those witnesses at the spot when the Senior INspector inspected the factory. The learned CJM also, in his order, has mentioned wrong fact. It is not expected from the court to mention wrong facts in its order. It should have seen the report Ex. P 8 and then mentioned the fact in the order. It is unfortunate that the learned CJM was so negligent that in his order, he mentioned wrong facts. Suffice it to say that it was not expected from the court to have mentioned wrong facts in its order.