SUPDT OF POLICE Vs. FIROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order on Crl. M. P. No. 1810 of 1993 in S. C. No. 66 of 1992 of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam is under challenge in this revision. In the course of the trial the prosecution furnished a list of additional witnesses and sought their examination, which was opposed by the accused, of whom A3 and A7 also filed objection stating that it was not warranted by law, that further investigation was conducted without permission of the court, that the additional materials stated to have been obtained could not be pressed into service and that therefore the court may desist from summoning the witnesses cited. THE objection was upheld by the impugned order.

(2.) I heard counsel for the petitioner and the accused.