R SRINIVASAN Vs. G SHANMUGHA VADIVU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 17490 of 1978 on the file of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate. Madras, are the petitioners herein. They seek the quashing of an order passed by the said Magistrate in M.P. 2826 of 1979 allowing the application of the respondent-complainant for summoning a witness as court witness even before any evidence was adduced by the complainant himself.

(2.) THE petitioners herein are officers in the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as T.U.C.S.) THE respondent herein is a tenant in respect of a portion of the premises belonging to the T.U.C.S. She filed a complaint stating that she discovered that the petitioners had been collecting excess charges from her towards electricity charges for the portion occupied by her, that she refused to pay double the domestic rates as demanded by them that subsequently misunderstandings arose between herself and the petitioners and it ended in the petitioners disconnecting the electricity supply to her portion of the house with effect from 18-2-1978 and the issuing of a lawyer's notice dated 3-5-1973 terming the tenancy with effect from 31-5-1978. THE respondent complained that the petitioners had committed offences under Sections 427, 506 read with Sections 34 and 109, I.P.C. and hence an action should be taken against them. After recording her sworn statement, the Magistrate took the case on file and issued process to the petitioners. After the petitioners entered appearance, the respondent filed M.P. 2826 of 1979 under S. 311. Cr.P.C. praying that one Rama Rao, building section clerk of the T.U.C.S. who was dealing with the files relating to the disconnection of the electricity supply should be examined as a court witness. THE petitioners herein opposed the said application and stated that without letting in any evidence on her side the complainant was not entitled to move the court to have a person examined as a court witness. THE objection of the petitioners have been overruled and the respondent's application has been allowed. In order to quash the order the petitioners filed this petition.

(3.) ARGUING contra, Mr. G. Pannerselvan, learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently states that the terms of S. 311 Cr.P.C. are so wide that no fetters can be placed on the powers of the Court on technical grounds. Hence the counsel would only say that the Magistrate is perfectly entitled to summon any person to appear in court as a court witness and give evidence even without the complainant adducing evidence on her side. The second contention advanced by him is that in any event, the impugned order is an interlocutory one and no revision would lie against an interlocutory order. In support of his first contention Mr. Panneerselvam places reliance on Jamatrai v. State of Maharashtra, Pascal Fernandes v. State of Maharashtra. and Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. In support of his second contention he places reliance on Raj Kapoor v. State.