PURSHOTTAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Purshottam Singh and six others for quashing the order of commitment passed against them by a judicial Magistrate of Hardoi, The applicants were committed to the Court of Session under Section 302/149 and several other section, of the i. P. Code. The ground for seeking this relief is that the Magistrate violated the mandatory provisions of Section 208 Criminal Procedure Code and did not permit the applicants to examine certain witnesses in defence.

(2.) THE facts of the case disclose that after the prosecution evidence was over, the applicants, through a counsel, filed an application praying that, before their statements as accused persons be recorded, their witnesses in defence should be examined. This application was filed on. 24. 12. 1953 and a list of witnesses was submitted along witb this application. The Magistrate issued processes to the witnesses named in the list and fixed 9. 1. 1954 as the next date of Hearing. On 9. 1. 1954 only one witness was served and the Magistrate examined him and the case was adjourned to 23. 1. 1954. On this date no witnesses appeared and the summonses issued to them came back unserved Thereupon fresh summonses were issued and 6. 2. 1954 was fixed for hearing. The witnesses did not turn up on that date either and the order sheet of the Court does not show whether they were served or not. The Magistrate then adjourned the case to 9. 2. 1954. On that date, some summoned documents were taken on the file and some more were summoned, but the magistrate refused to summon ally witness, although the counsel for the applicant requested that only two witnesses be summoned again. It is again not clear from the order sheet whether the summonses issued to these witnesses were served Or not. The two witnesses whom the applicants wanted to summon were the Railway Magistrate of Bareilly and his Reader. In his order dated 9. 2. 1954 refusing to summon these witnesses the Magistrate wrote that the accused insist on producing these two witnesses, as it would help them in getting bail from the sessions Court. He proceeded to give his interpretation of Section 208 Cr. P. C. and observed that a Magistrate should summon only those witnesses whom he deems to be necessary and finally he stared that he refused to summon these witnesses in order to expedite the case.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the Magistrate wanted to expedite the case, yet we find that he did not commit the case till more than a month later. All this time he was trying to get the, opinion of an expert from the Finger Print Bureau, Lucknow, at the request of the prosecution, on some of the documents filed by the defence. His desire to expedite the case was very strong when he refused the prayer of the accused to summon the witnesses, but it seems to have left him altogether when the, prosecution asked him to secure the opinion of an expert. After passing this order, the Magistrate examined the accused1 persons and every one of the applicants stated that he will not make a statement until the defence witnesses were examined. He thereupon committed them to the Court of Session on 15. 3. 1954.