Ramavatar Vs. State of Rajasthan

criminal procedure code - section 311--resummoning of witnesses--held, witnesses not to be resummoned unless there are sound and cogent reasons.;order accordingly - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - pc should be dealt with and it is expected of the learned additional chief judicial magistrate to go through them and decide the application assigning full and complete reasons for recalling the witnesses after a long lapse of time clearly showing their relevency, witnesses can not be resummoned only for filling up the lacunas of the prosecution there must be sound and cogent reasons for doing so.v.s. dave, j.1. i have gone through the order passed by the learned additional chief judicial magistrate, no. 1, alwar,by which he has directed the witnesses to be summoned by his order dated 25-7-1986 in a case which is pending since year 1978. the order does not disclose as to the witnesses were to be examined, for what particular purpose and why it was in the interest of justice to resummon at such a belated stage, when the prosecution evidence was over 5 years before. change of the judicial officer does not mean change of opinion and if the opinion has to be revised, then specific reasons must be disclosed for such change. it is borne out from the order of the learned magistrate himself that although three witnesses were present in court four years prior to date of passing of this order, yet they had been given up by prosecutor. a properly drafted application should have been filed explaining why the witnesses were first dropped and opinion is being changed. this court has time and again laid down the principles within which the application under section 311 cr.pc should be dealt with and it is expected of the learned additional chief judicial magistrate to go through them and decide the application assigning full and complete reasons for recalling the witnesses after a long lapse of time clearly showing their relevency, witnesses can not be resummoned only for filling up the lacunas of the prosecution there must be sound and cogent reasons for doing so. the order dated 25th july, 1986 is set aside and the, learned additional chief judicial magistrate is directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with the principles laid down.2. with the above observations, the application is disposed of.