Manmohan Singh Gujral, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by special leave is filed by Gurdial Singh whose complaint against the respondents was dismissed by the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, dated 8th May, 1970 for his failure to appear when the case was called on 8th May, 1970.
(2.) THE appellant had filed a complaint against Giani Karnail Singh Assistant Sub -Inspector and three other police officials of Police Station, Majitha, under Sections 323, 504 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that he had been illegally detained and beaten by these persons. In this complaint after the preliminary evidence had been recorded the respondents were summoned by order dated 24th August, 1968. The presence of the accused could not be secured till November, 1969 when after their appearance the complainant was directed to produce his evidence on 18th December, 1969. On this date three of the complainant's witnesses were present but their statements could not be recorded as the trial Magistrate was to proceed on half day's leave. On the next date the witnesses did not appear but on the subsequent date one of the witnesses was examined while the statement of the second could not be recorded due to lack of time. The case was then adjourned to 13th March 1970. On this date, however, no witness appeared and it was adjourned to 10th April 1970. All the witnesses of the complainant appeared on this date but their statements could not be recorded as the Court time was over and the case was then adjourned to 8th May 1970. On this date by 11 A.M. the case was called a number of times but as the complainant did not appear it was dismissed for default. From the facts mentioned above it would emerge that for a number of hearings the accused could not be served and on a number of occasions the complainant brought his witnesses but they could not be examined. It would further emerge that only on one occasion he was absent and that too till the earlier part of the day. It has been stated at the bar that the complainant appeared later on the same day and made an application for getting copy of the impugned order. This fact is borne out from the fact that the application for the copy was given on the very day when the complaint was dismissed. This would support the complainant's contention that he was held up for a short time and could not reach the Court in earlier part of the day. In these circumstances, it would have been just and proper for the trial Court to have waited for sometime more before passing the impugned order. In fact, it appears that the order was passed in undue haste. Moreover, such an order is clearly violative of the spirit of rule 3(ii)(a) of Chapter 1 -F, High Court Rules and Orders. Vol. 3. The following observations of this Court in Kishan Dass v. Manohar Lal,, (1964) 66 PLR 71 are fully attracted to the facts of the present case : - - Where a complaint under section 330 of the Penal Code was dismissed for default in the early hours of the day by the Magistrate and the order of the Magistrate on the complainant's application for restoration of the complaint showed that the application for restoration was presented on the same day at 11.40 A.M. Held, that the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint in default in the early hours of the day and not allowing the complainant an opportunity to appear in the later part of the day was against the directions of the High Court in rule 3(ii)(a) of Chapter 1 -F of the High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. III, and was against law.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, I accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, dated 8th May, 1970. I would direct that the case may proceed in accordance with law. The respondents through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 21st January, 1974.;