ARUN MADAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice. Since the case has been heard and its being finally decided by this Court at the admission stage itself, formal notice to the accused is waived.
(2.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order, dated 8.1.1997 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati in criminal case No. 441/87 titled State. v. Durga Ram and Anr. whereby the learned trial court had acquitted the accused of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 427 and 448/149 IPC. The case of the complainant in short is that in pursuance of an FIR dated 29.8.1987 which was lodged by the petition -complainant with police station Fatehpur Shekhawati against the accused -non - petitioners, the accused on the day of occurrence, i.e. 29.8.1987 had criminally trespassed into the premises of the complainant with apparent motive of assaulting the complainant and causing grievous hurt to the members of the complainant's family. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR the Police filed a challan before the competent court where charges were framed against the accused non -petitioner Nos. 2 to 22 for the aforesaid offences. The accused had contested the case of the prosecution and had claimed trial, accordingly the trial commenced. On 20.12.1996 the trial court closed issuance of process after recording the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses during trial and the case was fixed for recording the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on 3.1.1997. At that stage an application was moved by the complainant for recording the statement of Smt. Chandri wife of the prosecution witnesses but she could not be examined since the prayer of the complainant for examining her as a witness was declined. Thereafter another application was moved by Mannaram, the father of the complainant, on the ground that a fair opportunity should be provided to the complainant to lead evidence by examining two more witnesses, namely, Ramavatar and Smt. Chandri but that request too was declined and the applications came to be rejected vide order, dated 3.1.1997 on the ground that since the matter has been pending since long it was not reasonable to accede to the request of the complainant and the prosecution evidence was closed without giving any further opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing it has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was not possible for the complainant to have examined the aforesaid witnesses since they were out stationed witnesses and, therefore, reasonable opportunity was required in the interest of justice to make them available before the Court but the trial court arbitrarily rejected the said applications and instead proceeded to examine the accused persons by recording their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C.;