Back
1993 Supreme(P&H) 240
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S. Nehra, J.
Sat Pal - Petitioner
Versus
Harish Sachdeva Tailor Master and others - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 723 of 1992
Decided On : 21 April, 1993
For the Petitioner:Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. P. S. Saini and Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocates
The duty of the Court to summon the doctor and the importance of not unduly rushing to dispose of old cases to prevent the 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, leading to the closure of the rest of the petitioner's evidence.
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 issues revolved around the direction for the petitioner to obtain dasti summons and the closure of the petitioner's evidence by the Trial Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the complainant petitioner to obtain dasti summons and emphasized the duty of the Court to summon the doctor.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order directing the petitioner to obtain dasti summons was set aside.
A.S. Nehra, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-10-1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist 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 obtain 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 respondent 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 Code 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 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 Ist Class. Kurukshetra, is hereby set aside.
Petition allowed.
