Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Now having heard the learned advocates for the respective sides quite at length, it clearly appears to this Court that the impugned order is per-se perverse and illegal. The learned Magistrate was not conducting a "mock trial"!! The case he was trying was a serious case under the Prohibition Act wherein 400 tins of molasis valuing at Rs.l,90,002/were seized. This is a serious offence against the Society as from such molasis (rotten Gur)only the country liquor is prepared, which in the past has resulted into several hooch tragedies taking heavy toll of human lives and making many more surviving blind for life. To view such an offence lightly and too technically and in follow through mechanically acquit the accused is something quite unbecoming of any learned Magistrate, which cannot be countenanced for a while even. Once the court takes cognizance of any case, it is its first and foremost duty to do justice and while doing the same, it can take assistance of the prosecution. Accordingly, if the prosecution renders desired assistance, well and good, but in case if for whatever reasons it fails to render the same, it is for the court to exert and assert its judicial powers to compel the witnesses to remain present before the court at any cost and see that the cause of justice do not suffer and fail on account of the negligent prosecution. Turning to the facts of the present case it is apparent that the complainant was a Police Officer. Under the circumstances, it was the duty of the court to see that in the first instance by issuing summons and thereafter, warrant and even if that was not heeded to, by issuing even non-bailable warrant, he was kept present before the Court and examined in the overall interest of public. Not to discharge this duty in the manner suggested above, at the cost of repetition, it may once again be emphatically reiterated, stated that it is serious dereliction of duty, which neither can be countenanced lightly by the Administration of Justice nor can the learned Magistrate expect Society to pardon him. It further appears that the learned APP has also not taken the desired care in conducting the trial and it was for this reason only that he was summoned by this Court to remain present. On appearing before this court Mr. Vasant Rana from the file pointed out that the trial Court had once prepared summons against the complainant Police Officer but for whatever reasons that remained on the file and was never taken out to be served upon the complainant. Now this circumstance on the contrary is an indicator to show that the learned APP Mr.Vasant Rana had not taken any further interest in the matter, though his explanation was that because he was over-burdened with the work, he could not discharge his duty to the desired extent. As stated above, merely because the learned APP for whatever reasons failed to evince the desired interest in keeping the complainant present before the Court, this was certainly no ground for the learned Magistrate to throw to winds his sense of duty, interest and initiative in the matter of examining the complainant as has been done in the instant case. If the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that despite the fact that the to panch witnesses were present in the court and the learned APP was not present to examine them either he should have waited for the learned APP to come or should have adjourned the case to some future date and in case if the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the learned APP was in habit in not regularly attending the court, then he should have drawn the attention of the concerned DSP and the learned District Magistrate of the area. Be the case as it may, but the fact remains that such short-circuit premature acquittal in a serious case like the present one ought not to have been gifted away on the flimsy excuse of prosecution not examining the complainant where it was also plainly the duty of the learned Magistrate to take necessary steps to examine him in order to subserve the ends of justice. These glaring infirmities in the conduct of trial positively make out the case of remanding the case to the trial court for denovo trial. It is not possible for this court to agree with the submission made by Mr. Dave that since all the panchas have already failed to support the prosecution, therefore, the solitary interested evidence of Police Officer standing by itself would not be of any consequential assistance to the prosecution and that the remanding of the case would be an idle formality and waste of public time. There are cases and cases where depending upon the overall credibility of the evidence of the concerned Police Officer that the same can as well be relied upon despite the fact that the panchas had chosen not to support the prosecution. It is indeed too premature at this stage to say that the evidence of concerned Police Officer would inspire the confidence of the trial court or not. That all depends upon the honesty, integrity, performance and capacity of the concerned Police Officer to withstand the cross-examination at trial.