Joginder Singh vs There Is No Representation On ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 876 j&K

                                                                             S. No. 23

         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU
                                                     Crl R No. 66/2019

Joginder Singh                                         ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

                      Through :- None.
         V/s
State of J&K & Ors.
                  Through :-       Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG
                                   Mr. Prince Khanna, Advocate

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
                                         ORDER

1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. So was the situation on last date of hearing as well. Due to his consecutive absence, the revision petition is taken up for its disposal on merits.

2. This Revision Petition has been moved, assailing the judgment/order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the "Court below") in File No. 159/Challan titled, "State of J&K vs. Sanjeev Singh & Ors.", whereby the charge-sheet against the accused (respondents herein) was dismissed, who were acquitted of the charges for the commission of the offences, punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 RPC, for want of prosecution evidence.

3. The impugned judgment/order has been assailed by the complainant (petitioner herein) on the ground that he was never called as a prosecution witness by the prosecution and the same has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

4. The respondents had been charge-sheeted by the Court below for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 RPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 267/2017 on a complaint moved by the petitioner herein, however, the prosecution despite numerous opportunities could not examine any of the witnesses and the case was dismissed for want of evidence by the Court below vide impugned order/judgment.

5. On perusal of the record of the trial Court, it appears that on 01.06.2015, the petitioner as PW-1 had appeared in the Court, however, he was not examined by the prosecution since the learned Defence Counsel was not available and thereafter, neither he was produced by the prosecution nor the Court summoned him. It was incumbent upon the Court below to summon the complainant as a witness once he had appeared in the Court and was not examined, as such, his non-examination has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

6. Having regard to the above observations, the present Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned judgment/order is set aside with a direction to the Court below to proceed ahead afresh in the matter after calling prosecution witnesses. The Court below shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of this order, so that no injustice is caused to any of the parties on account of protracted trial. The trial Court record is ordered to be remitted back. Respondents through their counsel are directed to cause appearance before the Court below on 23.05.2023.

7. Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(M A Chowdhary) Judge Jammu 08.05.2023 Ram Krishan