The accused's right to fair and speedy trial and the prosecution's responsibility to secure witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The applicants are the original accused persons in connection with charge-sheet filed by Udgir Police Station (Rural) in Crime No. 214/2006 dated 26.12.2006, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

3. After filing of the charge-sheet, R.C.C. No. 731 of 2007 was registered and the matter was taken up by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.), Latur. Charges were framed against the applicants who pleaded not guilty and accordingly the matter was posted for trial. Though the learned Magistrate issued summonses to the witnesses on various occasions, no witness was examined in spite of giving several opportunities. The charge-sheet shows the names of witnesses and in spite of issuing summonses, prosecution failed to examine any witness. Therefore, the case of the prosecution was closed. The learned C.J.M. Latur vide its judgment dated 02.08.2013 acquitted both the accused persons for all the offences.

4. Udgir Police Station through the State filed criminal appeal before the Sessions Court at Latur vide Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2013. The learned Sessions Judge vide its judgment dated 13.01.2015 observed that acquittal of both the accused persons for want of evidence is incorrect as in spite of issuing summonses, the witnesses were not examined and it is not the only fault of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Court observed that, charges levelled against accused are serious and therefore, opportunity needs to be given to the prosecution. It further observed that the learned Magistrate ought to have taken due care and caution by keeping the witnesses present and examining them in such matters. Thus, the learned Sessions Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate by giving opportunity to the prosecution to led the evidence and thereafter to decide the matter afresh. It so happened that after the said remand by the learned Sessions Judge, the matter was taken up before the learned C.J.M. Latur in R.C.C. No. 731 of 2007. In spite of issuing summonses, only one witness was examined by the prosecution. The learned C.J.M. observed that in spite of issuing summonses from time to time, prosecution failed to keep the witnesses present and examine in support of charges. Accordingly, the case of prosecution was again closed. Vide judgment dated 07.10.2016, the learned C.J.M. Latur acquitted both the accused persons.

5. Interestingly, the State through Udgir Police Station again filed appeal before the learned Sessions Court, Latur vide Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2016. Vide judgment dated 24.03.2021, the learned Sessions Judge observed that since the offences alleged against accused are serious in nature, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken precaution and care so as to examine the witnesses. It is further observed that, the witnesses mentioned in the list are mostly Government servants and therefore, their presence could have been secured for recording evidence. The learned Sessions Judge then observed that, acquittal of accused persons for want of evidence is improper and since there are only nine (09) witnesses in the charge-sheet out of which seven (07) are in Government service in different departments, their presence could have been secured by the Trial Court. In the result, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter back to the learned C.J.M. again for disposal in accordance with law.

6. Thus, it is clear from the record that on second occasion, the learned Sessions Judge remanded the matter for retrial or for giving opportunity to the prosecution to examine the witnesses mentioned in the list.

7. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rodge for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent/State.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submitted that, t