KISHAN KANT PATHAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This Revision has been directed against the order dated 25-1-1993 passed by the Munsif-Magistrate, Aonla, district Bareilly, in connection with case No. 293/92. It appears that by that order the learned Magistrate issued summons against the revisionist, legality or propdsry of the said order has been challenged in this Revision.

(2.) NO counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that since the complainant did not produce a list of withesses at the time of filing the petition of complaint, the order is illegal. I do not agree with the view of the learned counsel. Section 204, Cr. P. C. speaks that no summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused until a list of the prosecution withesses has been filed. So it is not necessary that a list of such withesses should accompany the petition of com plaint and according to Section 204 (2) the said list can be filed at the time of issuing process and no process would be issued without it.

(3.) LASTLY, learned counsel has stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the learned Magistrate issued a warrant of arrest against the revisionist even when summons of the case was not received. No counter affidavit has been filed challenging the said version. The learned Additional Government Advocate also could not enlighten anything about it. Considering these facts I find that it is not legal to issue a warrant of arrest against the revisionist, without ascertaining the fact of proper service of notice or summons against him.