- (1.) THE respondent was tried and acquitted vide judgment and order dated 24.10.1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel for offences under sections 279, 337, 338, and 427 lPC and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the allegation that as a consequence of his rashly and negligently driving S.T. Bus bearing No. MTO / 8686 an accident took place in which Maruti Car bearing No. MAF / 593 was damaged and injuries were caused to Farshad Jal Gimi on 2.2.1987 at about 7.30 a.m. on Bombay Pune Highway opposite Palspe-phata Forest Chowki.
(2.) THE grievance of Mr.R.S. Deshpande, counsel for the Appellant is that the impugned order of acquittal is bad because it is evident from a perusal of para 5 of the same and record of the case that excepting the informant M.N. Shinde P.W.1, summons had not been served on any of the witnesses. According to Mr. Deshpande the impugned order of acquittal has been recorded under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. and the same could only have been recorded after evidence referred to in section 254 Cr.P.C. and such other evidence which the court might have deemed necessary was adduced. He urged that if summons were not served on the witnesses it was not their fault if they failed to turn up to give evidence. The submission of Mr. Deshpande cannot be lightly rejected. However, sight cannot be lost of the fact that a perusal of the roznama shows that the respondent has been sufficiently punished in asmuch as on as many as 11 occasions he was present in the court and the witnesses did not turn up for no fault of his. Sight cannot also be lost of the fact that excepting the offence under section 338 lPC which is not made out, as the said section contemplates of grievous hurt being caused and in the instant case, as is apparent from a perusal of the injury report of the victim, only simple hurt was caused to him, all other offences are punishable with the maximum jail sentence of 6 months R.I. Further, I cannot be oblivious to the fact that nearly 10 1/2 years have elapsed since the date of the incident and indeed it would be too harsh for the respondent if the case is remanded to the court below.
(3.) IN my view larger considerations of justice warrant that the impugned acquittal order should not be interfered with. Consequently this appeal is dismissed.;