- (1.) One of the accused of G. R. Case No. 228/76 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Tamlul, arising out of Paskura P. S. Case No. 27 dated 24-2-76 under Sections 406/465/4671468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code has filed the instant revisional application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceeding in the said G. R. case.
(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the instant application may be stated as follows : The accused-petitioner surrendered before the Court in connection with the aforesaid G. R. case arising out of Paskura P. S. Case No. 27 dated 24-2-76 on 8-4-76. A charge-sheet was submitted on 2-8-78. The charges were framed by the learned Magistrate against the present petitioner under Sections 406/465/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code on 29-4-81. Since the trial was being delayed, the petitioner moved this Court in Criminal Revisional Case No. 75 of 1991 on 15th May, 1991 for quashing the trial and J. N. Hore, J. (as His Lordship then was) by His order dated 15-1-91 disposed of the said application on the very date on which the application was moved, without issuing any direction for service of notice upon the Opposite Party. By the said order His Lordship directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, not exceeding in any case six months from the date of the order, in view of inordinate delay in disposing of the case. By the said order His Lordship also directed that a copy of the said order be communicated to the learned Magistrate at once. The said order was communicated through Assistant Registrar of this Court on 14-3-91. The case was already fixed on 7-5-91 for filing certified copy of the stay order of this Court by the accused persons, in default for recording of prosecution evidence. Although the said date was fixed for recording prosecution evidence of only two witnesses for prosecution, the learned Magistrate, on receipt of the copy of the order dated 15-1-1991 of this Court in the aforesaid criminal revision case, fixed that date for examination of all the witnesses for prosecution and issued summons for appearance of all the remaining witnesses for prosecution. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was recorded on 7-5-81, 8-5-91, 10-5-91, 11-5-91, 14-5-91, 16-5-91, 28-5-91, 29-5-91 and 13-6-91. The case was fixed on 28-6-91 for recording further evidence but the learned Trying Magistrate met with an accident on 26-6-91 and was forced to be on leave till 6-7-91. On 28-6-91, in absence of the learned Trying Magistrate, the P.O. incharge had no other alternative but to adjourn the case. He, however, adjourned it till 17-7-91. On that date, on behalf of the petitioner a petition was filed praying for an appropriate order in view of this Court's order dated 15-1-91 in Criminal Revision Case No. 75 of 1991 fixing a deadline for conclusion of the trial which expired on 15-7-91, while on the side of the prosecution a prayer was made for adjournment for examination of the I.O. The learned A.P.P. filed a copy of the message that was sent to the I.O. along with the prayer for adjournment. The learned Magistrate heard both the applications on that date i.e. 17-7-91 and disposed of the same by his order passed on that date.
(3.) In view of the gravity of the offences involved in this case and in view of the fact that in spite of his best efforts, the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period, the learned Magistrate by his order fixed 31-7-91 for evidence of I.O. for examination of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and also for recording evidence of defence witnesses, if any. On 31-7-91, the learned Magistrate received a message stating that the I.O. was dead. The prosecution produced one witness for examination. On behalf of the accused petitioner, a written objection was filed against the proposed examination of the said witness for prosecution and, upon consideration of the submissions made by the parties, the learned Magistrate allowed the said witness to be examined for the ends of justice. After his examination on behalf of the prosecution, a petition was filed on that very date for admitting certain seizure lists into evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act in view of the fact that the I.O. who prepared those seizure lists was dead. The defence again raised an objection against the said prayer for prosecution and the learned Magistrate fixed 2-8-91 as the date of hearing. The matter was heard on 2-8-91 and order was reserved till 5-8-91. The learned Magistrate fixed 5-8-91 as the date not only for passing his order on the question of admissibility of the seizure lists but also for examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and also for D.Ws., if any. The said question was finally decided by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 5-8-91 and the documents were admitted in evidence as prayed for by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate asked the accused persons to get ready on that very date for their examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. for the purpose of expeditious disposal of the case. At that stage, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate praying for adjournment of the examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. on the ground that he would file a criminal revision case before this Court against the order passed on that date. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate granted the adjournment so as to enable the accused persons to obtain the stay order, if any, from this Court. The accused petitioner, however, filed the instant revisional application on 20-8-91 praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding and did not keep it confined to the order dated 5-8-91 whereby the learned Magistrate negatived his objection against the admissibility of certain documents under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.;