Back
1993 Supreme(P&H) 235
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S.Nehra, J.
Sat Pal
Versus
Harish Sachdeva Tailor Master And Ors.
Criminal Revision No. 723 of 1992,
Decided On : APRIL 21, 1993
The duty of the Court to summon the doctor and the importance of not rushing to get rid of old cases to avoid failure of justice.
Headnote:
dasti summons - Duty of Court to summon doctor - The court held that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the complainant petitioner to obtain dasti summons. It was the duty of the Court to summon the doctor, and undue anxiety to get rid of old cases is not to be appreciated as it often results in the failure of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was directed to take dasti summons of the doctor and to serve the doctor at his own responsibility, and the rest of the evidence of the petitioner was closed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there is no provision for directing the petitioner to obtain dasti summons, and it was the duty of the Court to summon the doctor. The undue anxiety to get rid of old cases was not appreciated as it often results in the failure of justice.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner could be directed to obtain dasti summons for the service of the doctor, and whether the evidence of the petitioner was rightly closed by the Trial Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the complainant petitioner to obtain dasti summons, and it was the duty of the Court to summon the doctor. The undue anxiety to get rid of old cases is not to be appreciated as it often results in the failure of justice.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order dated 9.10.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurukshetra, was set aside.
A.S.Nehra, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-10-1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurukshetra, by which the petitioner (complainant) was directed to take dasti summons of the doctor and to serve the doctor at his own responsibility. The rest of the evidence of the petitioner was closed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. B Aggarwal, Advocate, has contended that there is no provision for directing the petitioner to obt in dasti summons; that the petitioner has already deposited expenses for the doctor that it was the duty to summon the doctor and that the petitioner cannot be directed to obtain dasti summons for the service of the doctor. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Joginder Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, (1991) 18 Cr. L .T. 127
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that on 19 2-1992 Sat Pal petitioner had made a statement in the Court that he shall bring the entire evidence on the next date of hearing otherwise his evidence be deemed to be closed and therefore, the evidence of the petitioner was rightly closed by the Trial Magistrate.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that there is no provision in the Cod of Criminal Procedure for directing the complainant petitioner to obtain dasti summons. The petitioner has already deposited expenses for the doctor, therefore, it was the duty of the Court to summon the doctor. Undue anxiety to get rid of the old cases is not to be appreciated, because it often results in the failure of justice
5. For the reasons mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 9.10.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurukshetra, is hereby set aside.
