LAWS(JHAR)-2005-2-73

LALMANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On February 17, 2005
LALMANI DEVI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the cases (Cr. Rev. No. 341/2003 and Cr. M.P. No. 1072/2003) are being disposed of by this common order because in both the cases, common question 'sof law and facts are involved.

(2.) THE Cr MP No. 1072 of 2003 has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 11.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below closed the evidence of the prosecution ignoring the facts that Cr, Revision No. 341 of 2003 is pending before the High Court, whereas Cr. Revision No. 341 of 2003 has been filed under Sec. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 25.7.2002 passed in S.T. No. 150 of 2002 whereby and where under the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh rejected the petition dated 19.7.2002 filed by the lawyer of the petitioner under Sec.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the opposite parties No. 2 and

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that charge sheet in the case was submitted against Jaipal Bedia and he was on bail and, therefore, the Court was not in hurry to dispose of the case when the criminal revision No. 341 of 2002 for setting aside the order rejecting the prayer to summon the witnesses i.e. O.P. No. 2 and 3, was pending. It was further submitted that the learned Court below should have considered that in the interest of justice and for just decision of the case, it should have waited for the decision of the High Court. It was also pointed out that the court should have considered that when some persons are required for their prosecution in the case and when no prejudice was going to be caused to the accused persons against whom charge sheet had been submitted, then in that case great prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the order of the learned Court below is bad in law.