STATE OF MYSORE Vs. ANANTREDDY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has for its source a revision petition which was presented by 31 accused to the District Magistrate, Gulbarga before whom the complaint ventilated was that there was non -compliance with the provisions of S. 207 -A(4) of Cr.P.C. by the committing Magistrate. What the committing Magistrate was to examine only one witness to the actual commission of the offence alleged, without insisting upon the production of the other witnesses to the commission of the offence.

(2.) IT was urged before the District Magistrate that the committing Magistrate was under a statutory duly to examine all the witnesses to the commission of the offence and that the transgression of the statutory duly vitiated the order of commitment.

(3.) THE four principle which emerge from this pronouncement of the Supreme Court are: firstly that the committing Magistrate must needs examine all the witnesses to the commission of the offence alleged whom the prosecution produces secondly that he must consider all the documents referred to in S. 173; thirdly that he should make an application of his judicial mind to the question whether the witnesses to the commission of the offence not produced by the prosecutor should be examined or whether there are any exceptional grounds not to examine them; and fourthly that he should insist upon the examination of those witnesses if there are no reasons for thinking that they need not be examined.