LAL Versus GHULLAN

ORDER

The facts giving rise to this revision briefly are that Gullan and 5 others, respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were tried under section 302/307/323/379/148/149, P.P.C. by Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh. The trial Court recorded the statements of 6 P.Ws. and acquitted the respondents under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. on 27‑10‑1987, hence this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the statements of Doctor and the Investigating Officer were yet to be recorded, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not acquit respondents under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C.; that there was no inordinate delay in the disposal of the case; that the trial Court miserably failed to consider the prosecution evidence; that the trial Court committed a grave illegality in applying the provisions of section 265‑K , Cr. P. C . because there was no lapse from the side of the complainant and the prosecution itself in the expeditious disposal of the trial and that the judgment of the trial Court is based on surmise and conjuctures.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the evidence of all material witnesses including four injured witnesses, has been recorded by the trial Court; that all the 6 witnesses have refused to support the charge against the respondents; that there is no substantive evidence against' the respondents on the record; that since the eye‑witnesses have not deposed against the respondents, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by recording statements of the Doctor and the Investigating Officer and that, in view of the evidence recorded by the trial Court, I am convinced that there was no probability of the conviction of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner was of the view that the powers under se6tion 265‑K, Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly, I do not agree with him. I feel that in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the cases and hardship to then parties, it is very much necessary that powers under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. should be exercised by the trial Court as frequently as possible as this will not only save the time of the Court and relieve the parties from hardship but will also be in consonance with the intention and object of the provisions of section 265‑K, Cr.P.C.

M . Y . H / L‑27/ L Petition dismissed.