Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : N.N. Mathur
Nazir Mohammad - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 301 of 2002
Decided On : 04/16/2004
Prosecution Failure - Criminal Procedure - The court upheld the revisional court's decision to set aside the acquittal order due to the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses for seven years, and directed the case to proceed in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order acquitting them for offences under Sections 420, 467, and 468 I. P. C. due to the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses for seven years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's non-appearance and the failure to serve summons on witnesses were reasons for the delay, and upheld the revisional court's decision to set aside the acquittal order.
Issues: Prosecution failure, acquittal order, delay in producing witnesses
Ratio Decidendi: The fault of the accused petitioner and the non-service of summons on witnesses were not sufficient grounds for closing the evidence and acquitting the petitioner.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the case was directed to proceed in accordance with the law.
N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr. P. C. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6-2-2002 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner whereby he has set aside the order dated 30th March, 1999 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bikaner acquitting the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I. P. C. on the ground that for complete seven years the prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses to prove its case and send the matter back, with direction to proceed with in accordance with law.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
3. It appears that the petitioner himself was not appearing before the trial Court. In fact the proceedings continued upto the year 1997 because of the fault of the accused petitioner and not of the prosecution Witnesses could not be produced as summons were not served on them.
4. The revisional Court rightly held that it was hardly a ground for closing the evidence and acquitting the petitioner. No interference is called with just and reasonable order.
5. The revision petition stands dismissed. Record of the case be returned forthwith.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
