Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. It further appears, as is clear from the record, that on 21st November 1986 the opponent caused five different charge-sheets pertaining to five different periods to be filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara, and it is further an admitted fact that the said charge-sheets were incomplete as would be clear from the note appended thereto. That the investigation was incomplete is further clear and admitted from the fact that on 21st November 1986 the Investigating Officer filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Satara (Exhibit 2) stating that the investigation could not be completed before filing of the charge-sheet and as such the prosecution may be permitted to make further investigation and collect further additional evidence in respect to the offences after filing of the charge-sheet. It was prayed that permission be granted to the prosecution to file an additional charge-sheet within 6 months from the date of the application after collecting additional evidence.

Orders on Exhibit 2 :
"Copy received at 2.22 p.m. after presentation of the application and arguments have been heard at 2.35 p.m. Satara. Dated : 6-12-86.
Sd/- D. B. Kshirsagar.
Advocate for the Accused.
Keep for orders on 2-1-87. 
                                                  Sd/- S. W. Khadse,
                                                     C.J.M., Satara,                                                         6-1-86. 
 Keep for orders until further orders. 
                                                  Sd/- S. W. Khadse,
                                                     C.J.M., Satara,                                                         2-1-87. 
                                ORDER 
 Prosecution is directed to produce all the documents in the Court. 
                                                  Sd/- S. W. Khadse,
                                                     C.J.M., Satara,                                                        16-1-87. 
 Orders on Exhibit 3 :
"Copy received at 2-23 p.m. after presentation of the application and arguments have been heard at 2-35 p.m. Satara, 6-12-86.
Sd/- D. B. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the Accused.
Keep for order on 2-1-87. 
                                                  Sd/- S. W. Khadse,
                                                     C.J.M., Satara,                                                         6-12-86. 
 Keep for orders until further order 
                                                  Sd/- S. W. Khadse,
                                                     C.J.M., Satara,                                                        2-1-87."
Adjourned for inspection on 4-3-87.
Sd/- S. W. Khadse, C.J.M., Satara."
15. Reading of the endorsement on Exhibits 2 and 3 referred to above and the orders passed thereon and the order-sheet dated 21st November 1986 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara, would reveal not only the utter non-application of mind on behalf of the trial Court but the perfunctory and casual approach of the trial Court in respect of making judicial orders. It is needless to state that taking cognizance of an offence under S. 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and condoning delay in filing prosecutions u/S. 473 of the Code are judicial orders in judicial proceedings. The order-sheet dated 21st November 1986 reveals that the trial Court mechanically took cognizance of the offence, directed process to be issued against the accused and at the same time passed an order that the application to file additional charge-sheet is kept for orders. This reveals that the trial Court was aware that the charge-sheets filed were incomplete and further after having taken the cognizance of the offence granting the application for condonation of delay without recording any reasons and without hearing the accused made the said order behind their back. Having so acted as revealed by the order-sheet dated 21st November, 1986, in a further casual manner, the trial Court proceeded to make orders on Exhibits 2 and 3 which are already quoted above treating Exhibit 3 which has already been granted on 21st November 1986 as pending and keeping it for orders. It is high time that the trial Court could realise the sanctity for the judicial orders which he was purporting to pass and of which presumably he was totally unaware.