V RATNA SHENOY Vs. S A PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned Magistrate is correct and calls for no interference. The question that arises for decision is whether a private complainant who hap filed a list of witnesses under S.204(1A) could file a supplemental list of witnesses either giving up some of the witnesses mentioned in the original list or adding some not included in the first list. The words 'remaining witnesses' in S.256(1) Crl. P. C. do not refer only to those witnesses who were in the first list. They refer to witnesses who had not been examined or those whose names have not been disclosed in the list before charge was framed. Support for this position can be had in the decision in Somasundaram v. Gopal ( AIR 1958 Mad. 341 ). S.204(1A) only says that no action can be taken on a complaint unless the list of witnesses is filed. But that would not disentitle the complainant from giving an additional list and toe court in issuing summons and examining them. I cannot agree with the view that the words 'remaining witnesses' involve only those that are left out from the first list. It would be open to the learned Magistrate to examine witnesses and to admit any essential documents which the prosecution wishes to produce.