BHARGAVA, J.—Since these two appeals by the State raise a common question of law, they are being disposed of by this one judgment.

2. In appeal No. 666 of 1963, respondent Nandkishore was prosecuted under sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the respondent while driving truck No. RJA 165 rashly and negligently caused injuries with it to a cow which fell down on the ground and died two days after. Since the case was instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate first Class Rajgarh adopted the procedure as is provided under sec. 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A charge was framed against the accused on 19th October, 1962. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was fixed for recording evidence of the prosecution witnessess on 4-12-62, 15-1-63, 12-3-1963 and 19-3-1963, but the prosecution failed to produce any witness. The learned Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence and observed that there was no duty of the Magistrate to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses because there was no such provision under sec. 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection he also referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Jyotormoyee Bose vs. Birendra Nath Prodhan (l) and another judgment of the Allahabad High Court in State Vs. Ramlal (2). He, therefore, acquitted the accused on 19th March, 1963.

3. In criminal Appeal No. 667 of 1963, accused Harpholi on the report of the police was prosecuted under sec. 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. A charge was framed against the accused on 3rd July, 1962. Thereafter the case was fixed for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 11-12-1962, 21-5-63, 26-3-63 and 21-5-1963. The prosecution did not produce any evidence on the aforesaid dates. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the same grounds as were mentioned by him in the case of Nandkishore. The State has now come up in appeal against these orders of acquittal. The respondents despite service of notice of appeal on them have not appeared in this Court.

4. The main question for decision in these appeals is whether the learned Magistrate was right in acquitting the accused even though the prosecution remained negligent in producing its witnesses at the trial. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State is that the Magistrate should not have refused to issue summons to the witnesses when such request was made to him on behalf of the prosecution and at any rate even if the prosecution had failed to produce its witnesses it was the duty of the Magistrate as well to have summoned and examined the witnesses under sec. 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the just decision of the case. In support of his contentions learned counsel has relied on State of Orissa Vs. Sib Charan Singh (3), Nathuram Darjee Vs. Pannalal Agarwala (4), The State of Bihar Vs. Polo Mistry (5), Public Prosecutor Vs. M. Sambangi Mudaliar (6) and State Vs. John Abraham (7).

5. In my view the contentions raised by the learned counsel are not without force.

6. Before the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Act No.XXVI of 1955, no separate procedure was provided for the trial of cases instituted on a police report. By the Amending Act, sec. 251-A was inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure which provided procedure for the trial of cases instituted on a police report. Sec. 251-A is a self contained section and lays down the procedure for the trial of cases instituted on a police report. The object underlying sec. 251-A was to provide speedy disposal of warrant cases so that the accused may either be discharged or the trial is brought to a speedy end in the conviction or acquittal of the accused as the case may be. Before sec. 251-A was inserted in the Code the procedure for the trial of such cases was provided in sec.252 to 258. Under sub-sec. 2 of sec. 252 after the evidence produced by the complainant had been taken the magistrate was required "

Click Here to Read the rest of this document