Abdul Samad and Ors. vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Din, J.—Heard Sri P.C. Srivaslava, the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.

The revisionists are beine, tried in Sessions Trial No. 460 of 1989, on the charge of murder punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. by the XIIAddl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad. In the course of trial as many as three witnesses have already been examined and the evidence of the complainant, Mohd. Salim was to be recorded. A date was fixed for the evidence of the complainant. The revisionist, Abdul Samad sought adjournment on the ground that he wanted to change counsel and engage Sri Moti Lal Jain. The Court allowed time and fixed 2899. On that date the revisionist against applied for adjournment on the ground that the counsel, Sri M.L. Jain has not come to the Court. The Court was lenient enough to grant another adjournment fixing 16899 for evidence of complainant as P.W. 4. The case was adjourned again for the reason that another counsel Sri Sudhir Gupta was busy in another Court ultimately 2999 was fixed for evidence of P.W. 4. On that date the revisionist again moved the Court for adjournment on the ground that the brother of the counsel, Sri M.L. Jain had expired and he is not in a position to come to the Court. The trial Court rejected the application for adjournmeni on the grounds; firstly, that the brother of Sri M.L. Jain expired on 17899 and by the date i.e. 2999 all the ritual ceremonies observed after death rould be performed and there would be no reason for Sri M.L. Jain not to come to the Court and crossexamine the witness, secondly, that it is oldest case of 1989 on the file of the Sessions Judge and his endeavourance is to conclude the trial within the reasonable time.

The revisionists feeling aggrieved of this order has filed the present revision on the ground that the delay in the conclusion of the trial was not on the part of the accused/revisionists but due to dialectic tactics resorted to by the complainant and that if the revisionists are not allowed adjournment their interest will be jeopardised.

It appears that irial of the revisionists commenced from 31 90, the date when charges were framed. The prosecution examined two witnesses. Thereafter the complaint moved an application before the Sessions Judge for transfer of the trial from that Court to the other. The Sessions Judge rejected the application, The complainant filed another application before the High Court for transfer of the Sessions trial to some other Court. This application was dismissed in October, 1994. The complainant did not inform the Court till 1396 the dismissal of his application for transfer, when a letter from the High Court was received in the trial Court on 12396 the trial of the revisionists resumed. The complainant was called to appear and give his evidence. He did not come. Bailable and nonbailable warrants were issued. He defied the Court''s order, hence, proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P.C. were also resorted to procure his attendance in the Court. Any how he appeared in the Court with a view to delay the conclusion of the trial he moved an application dated 19399 before the Sessioj Judge for transfer of the trial. It was dismissed on 22399. He again moved an application on 23399 through his mother for transfer of the trial. This application too was dismissed on 19699.

From the above chronological events the complainant''s conduct also appears to be one of the factors in the delay of the conclusion of the trial. Any how, when the trial has commenced it is obligatory on the accused to cooperate the Court in conclusion of the trial and not to seek unnecessary adjournments on one or the other pretexts. If such practice is permitted in the name of justice no trial come to end. At the same time, it may also be considered by the trial Court that the interest of the accused is not killed for want of crossexamination of a witness by the counsel on the reasonable and sufficient ground.

In the instant case the trial Court has refused the adjournment and discharged the complainant without crossexamination.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the revisionists shall not seek any more adjournment, if they are permitted to crossexamine the complainant on the next date fixed after 17999 for the purpose.

In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, I feel that the revisionists should be allowed one more opportunity to crossexamine the complainant, Mohd. Salim. The trial Court will fix a date after 17999, the revisionists shall not seek any adjournment. If they do so the evidence of the complainant, Mohd. Salim shall be closed and the trial will proceed.

With the above observation the revision is finally disposed of.

Let a certified copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the revisionists on payment of usual charges, within two days.

Revision disposed of.