This is an application for revision against the order dated 1.7.2004 whereby adjournment to the accused in a private complaint under Sections 302/148/149 PPC was granted subject to the payment of Rs. 4,000/- as diet money.
2. A case vide FIR No. 12 dated 19.7.2002 was registered against the petitioners for the alleged murder of Amanat Ali. Investigating Agency found the case false resulting in its cancellation.
Complainant instituted a private complaint. Process was issued. Case was listed for evidence.
Prosecution witnesses were present. Learned counsel for the accused was not in attendance.
Adjournment was allowed subject to imposition of Rs. 4,000/- as diet money, which was directed to be paid by the accused to the prosecution witnesses.
3. Learned counsel for the accused contends that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the Court to impose fine of diet money to the accused for non-appearance of learned counsel.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and the State argued that in order to prolong the agony of the respondent/complainant, learned counsel avoided appearance deliberately and there was no alternate left but to impose fine.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Petitioners are accused in the murder case. Prosecution witnesses were in attendance but were not examined on account of non-availability of learned defence, counsel. The Court had to adjourn the case perforce. There is a growing tendency of negligence in attending to murder cases which is the main cause of delay. It can be arrested by adopting the following modes:--
(i) Granting last opportunity to accused to produce his counsel.
(ii) Recording examination-in-chief of the witnesses in absence of accused counsel and reserving right of cross-examination and if not conducted on the adjourned date, then; Providing a defence counsel at state expenses.
7. Imposition of fine on accused for absence of counsel finds no place in Criminal Procedure Code.
Trial Court, thus, traveled beyond its jurisdiction. Support can also be sought from the case of Beedha accused v. Emperor through Bhagirath (A.I.R. 1922 Allahabad 184(1).
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Fine, if realized, should be refunded to the accused/petitioners.