ORDER S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A.
2. The trial pending before the Fast Track Court. First Tract does not mean injustice ot the accused. There is a specific direction by this Court by its order dated 3-12-2001 to supply a copy of the statement of the complainant to the accused before framing the charge. The application filed on behalf of the accused that his counsel has gone out to Lucknow in connection with a marriage and will not be available on the date on which the Fast Tract Court is to frame charge. It was also contended as a fact that copy of the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of the complainant was not provided to him as yet.
3. In the circumstances, the order framing charge ought not to have been passed by the trial Court. The dispensation of justice should not be made post haste. It must give an indication that justice is being done not only for the sake of doing it but also must appear to have been done to the party, who is going to be affected by this kind of dispensation of justice. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to provide a copy of the statement of the complainant for which he is entitled under the law under Section 207, Cr.P.C.
4. It is a sessions trial. As a matter of fact even the commitment could not be made unless the papers under Section 207 are provided to the accused persons, Section 207(iii), Cr.P.C. provides as under :
(iii) the statements recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under Sub-section (6) of Section 173.
In the circumstances, the accused is entitled to the statement of the informant (complainant), who is a material witness in the case. The approach of the trial Court appears to be extremely highhanded in not providing that statement before framing the charge. Such an approach is highly deprecable and is not seen with any compassion. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to act within the precinct of law and be not unnecessary arbitrarily and authoritative ignoring the provisions law.
5. In the circumstances adverted to above, the trial Court is directed to provide the applicant a copy of the statement of the informant within seven days. He will also be afforded an opportunity of amendment of charge, for which the applicant shall make an application, if any such change or amendment is felt required. Before proceeding with the trial, the trial Court will look into that application and after due application of mind shall pass necessary orders.
6. With these observations, this revision application is finally disposed of.