V.K. AHUJA, J.

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar dated 6.3.2000 vide which the respondent was acquitted for the notice of accusation under Section 337, 279, and 304 A. of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.5.1996, complainant Bhim Sen along with his wife Rima Devi, son Harnam Singh and one Hari Singh was going in a Taxi No. HP02-2894. It was alleged by the complainant that the taxi was being driven by the accused and one Vijay Kumar was sitting on the front seat of the taxi. The accused along with Vijay Kumar came out and the taxi started reversing. The wife of the complainant Rima Devi and Hari Singh died on the spot, whereas the complainant and his son Harnam Singh sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the police and the case was registered and after completion of the investigation, challan was filed before the learned Whether Reporter of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? trial Court to try the respondent mentioned above leading to the acquittal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

(4.) On a perusal of the statement of the learned trial Court it is clear that the statement of the complainant as PWs that the same has not at all been properly discussed by the learned trial Court in coming to its findings. A perusal of the judgment shows that the learned trial Court observed that complainant was interested in the case, since he has filed the complaint / petition for the compensation. It was not a ground to discard the testimony of the complainant. Moreover, there is no proper discussion of the statement of the complainant as to what he has stated in the examination in chief and cross examination and simply did not discuss his evidence. It was also observed that the prosecution has not examined Vijay Kumar sitting in the front portion of the taxi as a witness. The learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent on the basis of these grounds. In case there is no proper discussion of the evidence including the statement of the complainant and Investigating Officer, it cannot be said to be a judgment in the eyes of law.

(5.) Learned trial Court was required to discuss the statement of the complainant as to what he has stated in cross examination in regard to rash or negligent driving or the cause of accident and what he has admitted in his cross examination. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, which was material in regard to the allegations made, which have not been discussed at all. The Court had to consider the evidence and make appropriate observations with regard to the cause of the accident or rash or negligent driving and consider the facts of the case and then record the judgment according to law.

(6.) In view of the above discussions, I am unable to draw any inference as to whether the judgment was perverse. It was perverse to the extent that, it did not discuss the evidence of prosecution in detail and the conclusion drawn in the case.

(7.) In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court deserves to he remitted to learned trial Court for re-hearing the matter, discussing the whole evidence and then passing the judgment according to law. The learned trial Court shall independently consider the evidence and draw its conclusions accordingly, after referring to the evidence laid by the prosecution.

(8.) In view of the above discussions, I accordingly set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial court. The case is remitted back to the learned JMIC, Jogindernagar, who shall re-hear the parties and pass the judgment according to law. The learned trial Court shall als

o consider in its own view, in respect of non-examination of PW Vijay Kumar independently, not affected by any observation made by this Court. The parties through their counsel are directed to put up appearance, before the learned trial Court on 19.10.2010. Bailable warrant/ non-bailable warrant shall be issued to the respondent in case he does not appear. The learned trial Court shall try to dispose of the case on or before 31.12.2010.