S.D.BAJAJ, J. - (1.) IN respect of the occurrence which took place at 7-00 p.m on 26th September, 1988 in village Guthmara district Patiala both parties approached the Police with their own versions. Complainant Balwant Singh got D.D.R No. 32 recorded in Police Station Julkan at 7.45 p.m. on that date while the rival party got First Information Report No. 89 recorded in respect of it in the same police station on 27th September, 1988. Police believed the version of rival party and is, therefore, prosecuting complainant Balwant Singh and his 11 other co-accused on its basis. Complainant in turn filed his private complaint against ten members of the rival party on 13th October, 1988. Eight of them were summoned by the learned trial court vide its order dated 5th May 1989 under Sections 323/149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for 5th July, 1989. Respondent in the complaint, however, appeared before the learned trial court on 29th August, 1989. The case was then initially adjourned to 6th September, 1989 for evidence of the complainant and thereafter to 15th September, 1989 because no witness of the complainant was present on 5th September, 1989. On 15th September, 1989 also complainant alone was present but declined to appear as his own witness on being called by the learned trial court to do so in the absence of his counsel who had not come to the Court by the time the case was called. Learned trial court, therefore, closed the evidence of the complainant and acquitted the respondents arrayed as accused therein. Feeling aggrieved from the decision dated 15th September, 1989 of the learned trial, court Balwant Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No 372-DBA of 1989 in this Court. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal against acquittal was admitted to a regular hearing by a Criminal Division Bench of this Court on 5th October, 1989 after service of notice of the appeal aforesaid on respondents.
(2.) WE have heard Shri H. S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellant, Shri R.S. Cheema, Advocate for the respondents, and have carefully gone through the material on record. Respondents having put in appearance before the learned trial court on 29th August, 1989, the complainant was allowed only 8 days to produce his evidence on 6th September, 1989. In between the complainant moved the learned trial court for summoning of witnesses on 31st August, 1989 and deposited diet money and process fee for summoning them in terms of its order dated Ist September, 1989. Learned trial court, however, did not advert to this aspect of the matter in his impugned order of 6th September, 1989. Record is silent as to whether the same witnesses were ordered by the learned trial court to be re-summoned for 15th September, 1989 or not. Obvious conclusion is that the complainant was not allowed a reasonable opportunity of proving his case against the accused members of the rival party. The summoning order recorded by the learned trial court on 3rd May, 1989 on the basis of prima facie evidence before it by the complainant ended in smoke nearly 18 days after the respondents had put in appearance before the learned trial court in obedience thereto substantial and compelling reasons, therefore, exist for interference by this court with the impugned order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court in favour of the respondents on 15th September, 1989.
(3.) ANOTHER aspect of the matter is that in terms of the observations made in Banappa Kallappa Ajawan and others v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Bombay 146 and Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan and another, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1780 learned trial court ought to have announced its judgment in both the cross cases on the same day; after conclusion of trial in the cross case instituted on First Information Report No. 89 dated 27th September, 1988 of Police Station Julkan. The relevant observations are that the most desirable procedure in such cases would be that both the cases should be tried by the same Judge; who should postpone judgment in one cross case till he has heard the second case to a conclusion and he should then pronounce judgments separately in each case. Needful having not been done, impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is set aside. Parties to the complaint case have been directed to appear before the learned trial court on 26th March, 1990. Learned trial court would proceed with the trial of the complaint case from the stage obtaining on 6th September, 1989 and afford to the complainant adequate opportunity to adduce his evidence, conclude trial and pronounce its judgment together in both the cross cases in accordance with law.;