9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... summoning order is filed. 2. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 7-5-2007, counsel for the petitioners took time to file an additional affidavit, raising an additional ground to attack the pending proceedings on the grounds of delay. The petitioners were given time to file such an affidavit with a direction to indicate that the delay was not attributable to the petitioners in any manner. They accordingly filed application, which was taken on record as Annexure P-10. Noticing the inordinate delay in concluding the proceedings, notice of motion was issued. In the meanwhile, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, was directed to offer reasons as to why the case was allowed to pend for such a long time. On receipt of reply from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, this Court observed that Trial Court has unnecessarily allowed to drift this case endlessly and accordingly, after making serious observations, asked for detailed reasons alongwith zimni orders to find out as to why this case was allowed to pend for 19 years. The operative part of the order dated 10-9-2007 is reproduced below :- "A reply from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, in regard to the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent, whose counsel seeks time to file reply." The Judicial Officer presently dealing with the case was asked to offer his explanation. The case was adjourned to see how the situation can be remedied. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on written request on number of occasions by this Court, till it is taken up for hearing today. 4. As the case has been pending since 1988 and numerous zimni orders were recorded by the Trial Court, it would be appropriate to reproduce the explanation offered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, explaining the reasons for which the case was adjourned from time to time as otherwise it will take pages to pages to comment on it. The reasons given by the present Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on the basis of zimni orders, showing adjournment after adjournment in this case for the last 19 years or so are reproduced below :- "On 3-8-1989, the learned counsel for the complainant could not examine the witnesses as they had not brought the record and the case was adjourned to 9-11-1989. On 9-11-1989, no evidence of the complainant was present and the case was adjourned to on 9-11-1989 to 22-2-1990, for evidence of the complainant. On 22-2-1990, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and then case was adjourned to 17-9-93. On 17-9-93, the accused moved an application under Section 245(2) of the Cr.P.C for discharging them and the case was adjourned for 14-10-93 for filing reply. Reply was not filed on 14-10-93 and the case was adjourned to 8-12-93 for filing reply. Reply was filed on 8-12-93 and the case was adjourned to 4-2-94 and then to 21-3-94 for argument. On 21-3-94, the accused did not appear and their presence was exempted. On the request made by their counsel case was adjourned to 12-5-94 for arguments on the application. On 12-5-94, the case was adjourned to 25-7-94 for arguments on the application. On 25-7-94, The case was adjourned to 19-9-94, 8-10-94 for arguments and ultimately, arguments on application were heard on 8-10-94. Application moved by the accused u/s 245 (2) Cr. P. C. was dismissed on 22-10-94 and the case was adjourned to 21-12-94 for the evidence of the complainant. On 21-12-94, the presence of the accused was exempted and the case was adjourned to 3-2-95 for evidence of the complainant. On 3-2-95, again the accused did not appear. Their presence was exempted and the case was adjourned to 7-3-95 for evidence of the compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resignation to the complainant-Department. Even the accused were absent on the said date. The bail bonds of the accused were forfeited and the bail order was cancelled and the case was adjourned to 16-12-99 for evidence of the complainant. However, on that date, the accused appeared afterwards and the order forfeiting of their bail bonds was recalled. On 16-12-99, H.S. Bedi and P.S. Chawla again appeared before the court, but their statements could not be recorded as Mr. Bindra, Adv., who appeared on behalf of the complainant stated that he had not received the instructions from the Department and the case was adjourned to 18-2-2000. It would be proper to mention here that the accused were exempted from personal appearance. On 18-2-2K, witnesses H.S. Bedi and P.S. Chawla were again present, but the case had to be adjourned as the second half of the day was declared a Holiday due to the death of a lawyer. On next date i.e. on 4-10-2K witnesses H.S. Bedi and P.S. Chawla were again present, but their lawyers were observing strike and the case was adjourned to 15-5-2K. On 15-5-2K, the examination-in-chief of P.S. Chawla was recorded and his cross-examination was deferred on the req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel and the case was adjourned to 15-4-03 for consideration on charge. Similarly, on 15-4-03, presence of the accused was exempted and the case was adjourned to 20-5-03 for consideration on charge. Even on 20-5-03, the presence of the accused was exempted and the case was adjourned to 4-9-03 for consideration on charge. On 4-9-03, both the counsels requested for adjournment and the case was adjourned to 26-11-03 for arguments on charge. Since 26-11-03 was declared to be a Holiday, the file was taken up on 27-11-03 and the case was adjourned to 21-1-04 for consideration on charge. On 21-1-04, Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of the complainant and even the accused were not present and their personal appearance was exempted and the case was adjourned to 15-4-04. On 15-4-04, the case was adjourned to 27-4-04 on the request made by the parties. On 27-4-04, the accused were exempted from their personal appearance and the case was adjourned to 19-7-04 for consideration on charge. On 19-7-04, the accused were exempted from their personal appearance and the case was adjourned to 9-8-04 for consideration on charge. On 9-8-04, the case was adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Court and their personal appearance was exempted on the application moved by the learned defence counsel. It would be proper to mention here that the file was put up before me for the first time on 2-6-07 as I assumed charge at Ludhiana only on 23-5-07. In the order dated 2-6-07, it was specifically observed by the undersigned that the case is quite old and the charge is yet to be framed and necessary instructions were issued to the learned defence counsel to produce both the accused on 20-7-07. The long date had to be given as according to the Medical certificate produced by the learned defence counsel, accused Rajinder Pal Mangal had been advised bed rest upto 18-6-07 and thereafter, the courts were to remain close from 16-6-07 to 15-7-07 due to summer vacations. Even on 20-7-07, accused did not appear before the Court. An application for exemption from personal appearance of accused Rajinder Pal Mangal was filed. Said application was supported by a medical certificate. It was specifically observed by the Court that on one hand, the accused were delaying the framing of the charge-sheet by seeking exemption from their personal appearance on the medical ground and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the proceedings were stayed before the Trial Court. This application ultimately was dismissed on 24-8-1996. Again the same state of affair, indicating absence of the witnesses of the complainant, started and that is how the case was adjourned from 7-4-1997 onwards and continued to be fixed for recording the statements of witnesses. Some of the witnesses did appear on few dates but their statements could not be recorded either because of absence of counsel or due to presence of proxy counsel. This is how examination in chief of one witness was recorded on 15-5-2000. His cross-examination was deferred. This could not be conducted on few occasions. In between, again the presence of accused was exempted on their request. Over all, this case was allowed to drift in this manner without any control by the Judicial Officers over the case. The officers dealing with the case have virtually exercised no control to conduct this criminal trial. This state of affair certainly would call for some explanation from all the Judicial Officers who have dealt with this file and have allowed this case to drift in this manner. They would have to do lot of explaining. Further action on this aspect w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same charge can not be sustained. In support of his submission, the counsel has drawn my attention to some judgments like G.L. Didwania v. Income Tax Officer - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.), Santosh De v. Archna Guha and Others. - AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1229, Biswanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 1993 AIR SCW 3631 and S.G. Nain v. Union of India - AIR 1992 Supreme Court 603. 8. In fact, the petitioners, on the same ground, had sought their discharge by filing an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, which was dismissed vide order Annexure P-4. The revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed. The Revisional Court had considered in detail the submissions made by the petitioners to see if deletion of penalty against the petitioners by the Appellate Tribunal would amount to their acquittal in criminal complaint, leading to dropping of the criminal proceedings against them. In P. Jayappan v. S.K. Peruman, AIR 1984 SC 1693, it is held that in a criminal case ingredients of offence in question had to be established in order to secure the conviction of the accused. It is also observed that the criminal court no doubt has to give due regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
