Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2). The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the object of getting expunged certain remarks made by Honble Mr. Justice Milap Chandra Jain in the order dated 29th January, 93 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Peti- tion No. 17/91 Parbat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. In para No. 6 of the order dated 29th January, 1993 this Court made the following observations :–

``14 dates were fixed in the case for recording the statement of the investigating officer Karan Raj as the learned Public Prosecutor did not take necessary steps to ascertain his latest address as was expec- ted from a Public Prosecutor. Such a lapse on his part cannot be allowed to help the accused persons in a murder case but deserves to be reported to the Government in the Law Department for necessary action against him.

(3). The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of the case may be briefly summarised as below :–

(4). A Sessions case No. 63/91 State vs. Jalam Singh and Ors. under Sections 302, 307, 325 and 323 IPC was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore. In that case 14 dates were fixed for recording the statements of the Investigating Officer Shri Karan Raj. The prosecution failed to produce its evidence on the dates fixed by the court for the purpose of recording the evidence. When Karan Raj was not produced for examination, the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore closed the prosecution evidence on 26th November, 92. After that an application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the Public Prosecutor for issuing process against the witness. That application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The State, therefore, filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 17/93 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore. While disposing of that application vide order dated 29th January, 1993, the learned Single Judge made the observations, which have been reproduced above.

(5). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who was working as a Public Prosecutor was not responsible for non-appearance of the Investigating Officer during the trial of the session case and as such there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner and the observations made in para no. 6 of the judgment were therefore, not justified. It is also submitted by him that before making any observation adverse to the petitioner, it was necessary that he should have been given an opportunity to explain his conduct and since no such opportunity was given to him, the observations against the petitioner could not have been made. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Dr. Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar (1), State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Naim (2), Dr. S.N. Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (3) and Radhey Mohan Srivastava vs. State of Rajasthan (4).

(6). I have carefully gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(7). The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this petition.

(8). The first question to be decided is whether there was any lapse on the part of the prosecution in not producing the Investigating Officer Shri Karan Raj on the 14 dates of hearing to which the sessions case was adjourned by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore.

(9). In Lt. Col. S.J. Choudhary vs. State (Delhi Administration) (5), the Honble Supreme Court has pointed out that sessions case must be heard and disposed of in one session by conducting the trial on day to day basis and before the trial is commenced, it should be ensured that the witnesses are in attendance. Their Lordships observes as below :-

``We think it is an entirely wholesome practice for the trial to go on from day-to-day. It is most expedient that the trial before the court of

Sessions should proceed and be dealt with continuously from its inception to its finish. Not only will it result in expedition, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document