ARUN MADAN,J. - (1.) FROM the perusal of the transfer application, it is apparent that in pursuance of the directions of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 283/97 in the interest of justice the petitioner was given two opportunities to produce all his relevant evidence in defence before the trial Court which he intended to examine in support of his case. The learned Magistrate in compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Court directed the accused-petitioner to complete all his evidence in compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, but which evidently he failed to comply with. On 13.12.96, instead of producing the evidence in support of his case, the petitioner with a view to circumvent the aforesaid directions of this Court did not produce the evidence and instead moved an application under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for producing the witnesses in his defence as so stated in para 3 of this transfer application. In the said application the names of at least 10 witnesses were mentioned and it was prayed that they may be summoned through the process of the Court. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court on the same day i.e. 13.12.96 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the application on flimsy and arbitrary grounds without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to furnish fresh addresses of the persons named as defence witnesses. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge Sikar who dismissed the same by speaking order on merits vide its order dated 20.12.96 and against the said order the petitioner yet not being satisfied came to file S.B. Misc. Petition No. 283/97 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before this Court. The said petition was decided and finally disposed of by this Court vide dated 28.5.97 with the following directions :- "Therefore, in the interest of justice and to enable the accused/petitioner to produce his evidence in defence, this court orders under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner shall be given two opportunities to produce all his witnesses which he intends to examine in his defence and in order to enable him to produce the witnesses, the learned Magistrate shall issue summons and hand over such summons to the counsel for the petitioner for service. The petitioner shall be responsible to get such summons served upon his witnesses. No opportunity on the ground that witnesses could not be served or that the witnesses declined to accompany him would be allowed."
(2.) IN spite of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the petitioner has not produced all the relevant evidence of the defence witnesses before the trial Court as cited by him in his earliest application moved before the trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court gave at least two opportunities to the petitioner to lead his evidence in defence i.e. 20.6.97 and 21.6.97 but the petitioner failed to produce all the evidence or to take the witnesses along with him on the said dates. From the perusal of the order-sheet which has been shown to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing of this petition, it is apparent that the trial court had issued summons to all the witnesses and directed them to be present before the said Court on 20.6.97 and remaining evidence was to be completed on 21.6.97 and all the summons were given to the counsel for the petitioner for effecting the Dasti service on the said witnesses. As per the aforesaid directions, the petitioner was responsible to get the service of summons duly served upon his witnesses but the petitioner failed to comply with the said directions for the reasons best known to him. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge Sikar by making all frivolous allegations against the Presiding Officer which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 4.11.97. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this transfer application.
(3.) ON 11.7.97, the petitioner was given an opportunity to examine the remaining evidence and he had examined one Jagdish Prasad as witness and the petitioner had produced summons for remaining witnesses and the case was adjourned for 12.7.97. On the said date the trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner and proceeded with the matter for final disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is preferring criminal miscellaneous petition separately before this Court.;