CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS 277 of 2000 on 13 July 1999

O R D E R

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.277/2000

Bhoora Mal & Ors. vs. State of RajasthanDate of Order ::::: February 11,2009

Present

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN

None present for the petitionersMr. K.S.Chandel, P.P.

Petitioners were facing trial under Sections147, 364/149, 302/149 and 201 IPC in the court ofSessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur. It seemsthat after recording the statements of thepetitioners, the matter was fixed for defenceevidence then on 13.7.1999 an application underSection 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of thepetitioners for calling Shri Shrichand Chaudhary,the then Circle Officer and also Motbir Hanuman.The learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur DistrictJaipur by the order dated 16.8.1999 rejected theapplication observing that if the petitioners sointerested they can produce these persons asdefence witnesses. Being aggrieved of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District,Jaipur the petitioners have filed the instantpetition.

None appeared for the petitioners.

Heard learned P.P. and perused the impugnedorder and also the material available on therecord of the case.

A perusal of the application reveals thatthe application was moved with the averments thatShri Shrichand Chaudhary, the then Circle Officerwas present at the place of the occurrence andspecific direction was given by him forconducting the investigation. Simultaneously inthe said application it was also prayed thatHanuman son of Deva Ram was also another Motbirof Ex.P.8 to P.15 which have already been provedby producing another Motbir Pratap. The learnedTrial Judge while going through the entire factsand circumstances of the case observed that ShriShrichand Chaudhary nowhere was present as hispresence is not available on the executeddocuments and simply by giving a direction forconducting investigation one cannot become awitness. It is for the prosecution to choose as to which of the witnesses is to be examined andwhich of the witnesses is to be left over. Whenone of the motbirs has been examined either theprosecution or the court can drop the anothermotbir.

It is also pertinent to mention here that indefence till 27.10.1999 four witnesses wereexamined by the petitioners. The order dated7.12.1999 reveals that an application was filedon behalf of the petitioners through theircounsel with the averment that he is unable tostart final arguments and that he does not wantto lead evidence in defence. Thereafter on somany dates final arguments were not started onthe one or the other grounds. Thus, it is clearthat the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.was moved with intention to delay the trial ofthe case.

In the facts of the case it seems that withan intention to delay the trial of the case, theapplication was filed. Therefore, the order ofthe learned Trial Judge is perfectly legal and nointerference is required to be called for in thesame by this Court in the exercise of inherentjurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Consequently, the misc. petition standsdismissed.

Office is directed to return the record tothe concerned court i.e. learned Addl. SessionsJudge (Fast Track), Chomu, Jaipur District Jaipurimmediately.

(Bhanwaroo Khan),J.

bairwa

S.B.Cr. Misc. Stay Application No.173/2000in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.277/2000

Bhoora Mal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order ::::: February 11,2009

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN

None present for the petitionersMr. K.S.Chandel, P.P.

Since the main petition has been dismissed,this stay application also stands dismissed.

(Bhanwaroo Khan),J.

bairwa