RAMAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has arises in this way :-

(2.) Now in the instant Sessions case in S. C. No. 30 of 1995, the prosecution sought to mark the F.I.R. in Crime No. 350 of 1992 through the Sub-Inspector of Police who was examined as P.W. 12 to prove the motive for the present occurrence. According to the petitioner, Ganapathy must be examined as Court witness in the interest of justice.

(3.) In the counter, the respondent had stated that there had been no material suppression of fact and that Ganapathy had not been cited as a witness for the prosecution in the instant case and therefore, he need not be examined as a witness. The respondent had also contended that Section 311, Cr. P. C. is not intended for invoking powers to examine the witness at the instance of the either party and if the accused is desirous, he may examine Ganapathy as his defence witness. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai enquired into the matter and held that the prosecution has adduced enormous evidence for the purpose of proving its case and it was not necessary for the Court to examine Ganapathi as Court witness.