SURESH KUMAR S. Vs. ASIANT SATELLITE COMMUNICATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 469 of 2014 on the files of the court below. The petitioner filed CMP No.499/2018 before the court below praying for recalling PW1 for the purpose of examining him with reference to the documents produced by the defence. The court below as per Annexure- A8 order dated 17.03.2018 dismissed the said petition, against which this Crl.M.C. has been filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Annexure-A6 is the petition which would state that the examination of PW1 was necessary to prove the documents produced by the defence. This Court in Shobha Rani v. State of Kerala and Others [2018 (2) KHC 73], held thus:- On going through the provisions of S.254(2) Cr.P.C., it is manifest that an effective discretion is conferred on the Magistrate in the matter. If and only if the Magistrate thinks it fit, the Magistrate needs to issue summons to a witness on the application filed by the prosecution or the accused. The Magistrate has to ensure that the examination of the witness is not to cause harassment to the other side or the witness sought to be summoned. However, if the Court is satisfied that the examination of the witness is in any way relevant and necessary for the purpose of just decision of the case, such prayer shall not be turned down. Only when the Court is satisfied that the prayer to summon the witness is unjustified, the Court shall turn down the request in exercise of the discretion under S.254(2) Cr.P.C.