Skip to content


Chiranji Lal S/O Baldev Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 231 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)578
AppellantChiranji Lal S/O Baldev Prasad
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - documents not supplied to petitioner--order based on extraneous material--held, it cannot be sustained;the university authorities in all fairness should have supplied the copies of the documents whichever was available with them out of the list furnished on 4-4-1985 rather than writing to the court and the court could not have refused the permission without looking into the documents itself whether the same were relevant or not. the order, therefore, being based on consideration extraneous to the applications made in the court cannot be permitted to stand.;petition allowed. - .....submitted in the year 1975 and the trial has taken over a decade. however, i am informed that the prosecution evidence came to be closed on 14-3-1985 and not on 16-3-1975 as mentioned in the order of the learned magistrate meaning thereby prosecution has taken 10 years to complete its evidence. the learned magistrate while maintaining the dates has put in 16-3-76 as the date of closing the prosecution evidence which fact has ex facie being from the record and consequently the entire premises of the case on which the whole edifice has been built falls down. it was the bounded duty of the magistrate to have properly looked into the record before he writes an order and there is no scope for a type writing error because in the whole typed order the date 16-3-1976 has been entered into in.....
Judgment:

Vinod Shanker Dave, J.

1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed against rejection of the application, dt. 15-4-1985. Charge-sheet in this case was submitted in the year 1975 and the trial has taken over a decade. However, I am informed that the prosecution evidence came to be closed on 14-3-1985 and not on 16-3-1975 as mentioned in the order of the learned Magistrate meaning thereby prosecution has taken 10 years to complete its evidence. The learned Magistrate while maintaining the dates has put in 16-3-76 as the date of closing the prosecution evidence which fact has ex facie being from the record and consequently the entire premises of the case on which the whole edifice has been built falls down. It was the bounded duty of the Magistrate to have properly looked into the record before he writes an order and there is no scope for a type writing error because in the whole typed order the date 16-3-1976 has been entered into in writing by the learned Magistrate himself which he has done while signing the order. This date has not been repeated any where else in the whole order which ex facie shows that he laboured under mis-conception that 3 years before the prosecution evidence has come to an end. It was on 13-3-1985 that the accused has been examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and he soon thereafter made an application before the concerned authorities for supplying him certified copies of certain documents. It is regretable that the authorities of the University inspite of supplying the copies addressed a letter direct to the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambher Lake who took cognizance of the letter not written in pursuance of any letter from the court but written on the basis of the application for issuance of certified copies. The University authorities in all fairness should have supplied the copies of the documents which ever was available with them out of the list furnished on 4-4-1985 rather than writing to the court and the court could not have refused the permission without looking into the documents itself whether the same were relevant or not. The order, therefore, being based on consideration extraneous to the applications made in the court cannot be permitted to stand. Consequently the order passed on 6 5-1985 on the application dated 15-4-1985 is quashed. The authorities concerned are directed to issue the certified copies of the attendance registers available to them within 10 days from the date of the receipt of this order and the court shall after looking into the documents, consider the relevancy of the documents and give one opportunity to the defence to produce the evidence which the accused shall produce himself. However, if the accused wants the summons for the witnesses the court will provide the same. It is however, made clear that the prosecution of this case must come to an end within 3 months from today.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //