ORDER I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. This Criminal Revision under Section 401, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 24-7-1997 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 231 of 1996 State v. Atul and Ors. under Section 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C.
2. By the impugned order dated 24-7-1997 the learned Sessions Judge has ordered to close the prosecution evidence as the prosecution has failed to produce one Mr. Balram Mishra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was the investigating Officer of the case and nowadays is posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Vigilance Department under the Director, Vigilance, Uttar Pradesh. It has been stated in the impugned order that the prosecution has failed to produce Sri Balram Misra despite several opportunities being given. It has also been mentioned by the learned Special Judge that the special feature of this case has been that whenever the warrants had been issued to ensure the presence of Mr. Balram Misra the police has invariably reported that Mr. Balram Misra was neither available at his residence nor at the place of posting. It was in these circumstances that the learned court below closed the prosecution evidence and fixed a date for recording the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the evidence of Mr. Balram Misra is very essential in the case as the applicant's daughter was killed by her in-laws and Mr. Balram Misra had investigated the case and in case Mr. Balram Misra is not produced the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and injury. It has further been stated that the applicant had traced out the address of Sri Balram Misra who was .posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Directorate of Vigilance, Lucknow and if the warrants would have been sent through the Higher Police Officers such as Director of Vigilance the presence of Mr. Balram Mishra would have been enforced.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate and have carefully gone through the impugned order of the Court below.
5. A bare reading of the impugned order of the court below shows the various steps taken by the court below to enforce the attendance of Investigating Officer. In the state of affairs indicated by the Court below it would be very difficult for the courts to work smoothly. Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with processes to compel appearance. Section 66 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is relevant and is reproduced below :
66. SERVICE ON GOVERNMENT SERVANT:
(1) Where the person summoned is in the active service of the Government, the Court issuing the summons shall ordinarily send it in duplicate to the head of the office in which such person is employed, and such head shall thereupon cause the summons to be served in the manner provided by Section 62 and shall return it to the Court under his signature with the endorsement required by that section.
(2) Such signature shall be evidence of due service.
Section 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the manner and mode of service of summons. Part B of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with warrant of arrears and Section 74 thereof is relevant which is being quoted below for ready reference ;
WARRANT DIRECTED TO POLICE OFFICER :
A warrant directed to any police officer may also be executed by any other police officer whose name is endorsed upon the warrant by the officer to whom it is directed or endorsed.
Part C of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with proclammation" of attachment and Part D deals with other rules regarding processes.
6. Keeping in view the provisions of law some of which have been quoted above enability on the part of the learned Court below to enforce the attendance of Mr. Balram Misra is un-understandabel. The learned Special Judge in the facts and circumstances of this case would have written to the Secretary Home Department or the Highest Police Officer along with the warrant of arrest to procure the attendance of Sri Balram Misra. The hands of the law are not" so short that a Court of Special Judge could not enforce the attendance of a petty police officer.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances on the case the revision is allowed. The order of the learned Special Judge dated 24-7-1997 is set aside and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to summon Mr. Balram Misra at the address given by the applicant to attend the Court and given evidence and in case he does turn up to issue warrant of arrest against him through the Director Vigilance, U.P. Lucknow to enforce the attendance of Mr. Balram Misra and, in case, such a warrant of arrest is issued, the Director Vigilance U.P. is directed to exercise the same and enforce the attendance of the police officer before the Court on the date fixed to give his evidence. In the event of failure on the part of the Director Vigilance, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to submit his report before the Court for taking action for dis-obedience of the Court's order.
8. With the above direction the revision is allowed. A copy of this order may be made available to the learned Additional Government Advocate, who in his turn will take steps to inform the concerned officers about this order. A certified copy of this may be made available to the learned counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges within a week. Office is also directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Home to apprise him the state of affairs prevailing in the State.