GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the state of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11. 10. 99 in Criminal Case No. 214/91 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I. P. C. on the ground of non-production of evidence by the prosecution.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: (i) The case of the prosecution in short is that on 29. 9. 89, Shri Ram Singh, Sub Inspector, Vigilance, Jaipur camp Hanumangarh lodged a report with the Police Station Kotwali Hanumangarh Junction stating that the accused respondent Murari Lal in conspiracy with other accused respondents presented an application showing himself as Mani Ram S/o Ladu Ram Meghwal, resident of Rampura in the office of Roadways, Bikaner and impersonating himself as Mani Ram got service as conductor. (ii) On this report, a case was registered and investigation was commenced. (iii) After usual investigation, a challan was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate against the accused respondents for the said offences. The challan was filed on 24. 8. 91. The relevant dates of this case are as follows: (i) The challan was filed on 24. 8. 91 but the accused respondents put in appearance in the Court on 22. 2. 96. (ii) Charges were framed on 1. 8. 96 for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter the accused persons did not remain present in the Court, but their personal attendance was dispensed with. (iii) From the ordersheet dated 1. 8. 96, it also appears that first three witnesses were ordered to be summoned though in the charge-sheet, as many as 15 witnesses were mentioned. (iv) For seven months on three dates witnesses did not appear. On 28. 8. 97, 17. 11. 98, 23. 1. 98 and 6. 4. 98, witnesses were also summoned, but not present. Even accused respondents were not present and their personal attendance was dispensed with. (v) On 11. 8. 98, the accused did not appear and their bail bonds were forfeited and they put in appearance on 17. 9. 98 and bail was granted to them. (vi) One witness Om Prakash was present on 19. 5. 99 and his statement was not recorded and the file was ordered to be put up on 8. 7. 99. (vii) On 8. 7. 99, another witness Ganpat was present and Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, his statement was also not recorded and the file was ordered to be put up on 25. 8. 99. (viii) On 25. 8. 99, P. P. was directed to produce witnesses and in case witnesses would not be produced by the prosecution, the evidence would be closed and the file was put up on 11. 10. 99. (ix) On 11. 10. 99 the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned Magistrate by which he acquitted the accused respondents for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I. P. C. on the ground that the prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses and in absence of that no case of prosecution can be found to be proved. Aggrieved from the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11. 10. 99, the State has filed the present appeal. In this appeal it has been argued on behalf of the P. P. that the record of the case shows that only three witnesses were ordered to be summoned out of list of witnesses numbering 15 and on two occasion, one witness was present, but his statement could not be recorded and actual delay which has been caused at the stage of trial was caused by the accused respondents themselves. It has been argued that it was duty of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to summon the witnesses and the order of acquittal passed without procuring the attendance of the witnesses is perse illegal and, therefore, it has been prayed that the order of acquittal be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents has argued that the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate is correct one and it should not be interfered with. Before proceeding further, it may be stated that on 31. 1. 2000 one of the Hon'ble Judge of this Court passed an order in this leave to appeal No. 23/2000 and the Hon'ble Judge observed that this file requires to be investigated by vigilance Cell. Vigilance call came to the conclusion that as per order- sheet, accused persons were responsible for delay caused in not appearing in the Court for nearly 4 years and 7 months and thereafter the accused persons got the benefit of dispensing with of their attendance on every date of hearing and thereafter Vigilance cell came to the conclusion that the conduct of Shri N. C. Jain, Chief Judicial Magistrate who passed the order of acquittal dated 11. 10. 99 cast doubt about his integrity and the file was put up before Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed an order on 3. 5. 2000 in the following manner: "await result of appeal against acquittal. Also expedite hearing of appeal by fixing it for early hearing bringing the facts to the knowledge of the Court. " ;