AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner-informant against the judgement dated 17.10.2002 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons from the charge under Sections 323, 341 and 348 of
the Indian Penal Code on the ground that no evidence in support of prosecution case has been adduced by the prosecution and in absence of the same
the charge cannot be proved against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and on the benefit of doubt the opposite parties were acquitted.
The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the informant was never issued any summon and there was no occasion for the
informant to prove its case. He further submits that the entire order-sheet does not indicate that summons was ever served upon him or other
prosecution witnesses as such the order dismissing the prosecution case is bad in law. Relying upon the provision enshrined under Section 242
Cr.P.C., he submits that summon / notices must be served upon the informant also and since no notice/summon was ever served upon the informant,
there was no occasion to adduce the evidence in support of prosecution. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the instant application
deserves to be allowed and the case may be remitted back before the learned trial court and the petitioner may be allowed to adduce evidence in
support of his complaint.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 supports the impugned order and submits that enough opportunity was given to the
prosecution to produce the witnesses but the State failed to produce any witness and the learned trial court has not committed any error either in law
or in fact dismissing the criminal case against them. He further submits that even bailable warrant was issued against the P.W.s on 03.09.2002 but
none turned up to support the prosecution case. In that view of the matter, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the case of the prosecution. He
further submits that no error has been committed by the learned trial court and as such the instant application deserves to be dismissed.
Heard Mr. K. K. Singh assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
to 4 and also the learned A.P.P. for the State.
From the record, it appears that as soon as the substance of accusation was explained to the accused persons on 11.07.2001, the summons were
issued to P.W.s on 20.07.2001. Thereafter, the case was adjourned awaiting presence of the prosecution witnesses. The concerned A.P.P. was again
directed by the learned trial court on 11th July, 2002 to produce the prosecution witnesses but all in vain.
The record also indicates that even bailable warrant was issued against the P.W.s on the petition filed by the learned A.P.P., however, even after
issuance of bailable warrant nobody appeared before the court and finally on 07.10.2002, the defense counsel prayed to close the prosecution case
and even the learned A.P.P. filed a petition stating therein that even though he tried to call upon the prosecution witnesses through Superintendent of
Police, Bokaro but no prosecution witness appeared to adduce their evidence. In the absence of any evidence in support of prosecution case, the
opposite party no. 2 to 4 were given benefit of doubt and they were acquitted from the charge.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any error in the impugned order and the petitioner has failed to point out any error in procedure or
perversity in the order so as to want any interference by this Court.
As a result, the instant application is dismissed.