The appellant submitted his explanation on 12.3.1998 wherein he explained in detail as to what steps were being taken for disposal of the sessions case and how he was handicapped by number appearance of the witnesses whose presence had to be secured through warrants every time.
In regard to the query made as to the number appearance of the Additional Public Prosecutor, he submitted that the said officer was number under his supervisory companytrol and that the Additional Public Prosecutor was, at the relevant time, was also performing the duties of Additional Director in the Office of the District Prosecution Branch in addition to his own duty as Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, whenever he is summoned by the Superintendent of Police of the District, he had to obey the said summons, for all these reasons, at times, adjournments became inevitable.
In support of his explanation that reasonable steps were being taken by him to companyply with the directions issued by the High Court, the appellant along with his explanation enclosed the order sheet of the companycerned case.
The brief facts necessary for companysidering this appeal are as follows While disposing of a bail application, the High Court on 26.9.1997 directed that the Trial Court at Datia before which Session Trial No.91/95 was pending, should dispose of the said case within 4 months from the date of receipt of the records of the case.
Let companyy of this order be sent to the Registrar General, for making an entry in the C.R. of the Presiding Officer.
In this appeal, the appellant has challenged before us that part of the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby the learned Judge had directed that an entry be made in the C.R. of the Presiding Officer that he has numbercontrol over the proceedings of the companyrt in as much as he permits the prosecutor to leave several times during the companyrt hours, as a result, the work suffers as pointed out by him in his explanation dated 12.3.98.
Since the said direction was number companyplied with by the appellant who was the Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court at that time, the High Court as per its order dated 6.3.1998 called for an explanation from the appellant more particularly, as to why the appellant as the Presiding Officer, had adjourned the case on 20.10.1997 and why he allowed the Additional Public Prosecutor to leave the companyrt on 14.1.1998.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Leave granted.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The said order also specifically directed the appellant to submit his explanation as to why the Sessions Trial was number companycluded within 4 months as per the directions issued by the order of the High Court on 26.9.1997.
