PUTTAULU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of a Special Magistrate, First Class, Kanpur, committing the applicants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. to stand their trial before the Court of sessions. According to the allegations made in the complaint, complainant Puttan Lal was shot at by a country made pistol by one of the applicants at the behest of the other applicants and had received therein gun shot injuries. A number of witnesses were produced in support of the allegations made in the complaint. Dr. Mathrani had stated that the complainant was admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient on the 6th January 1963, and was discharged on 13th of February 1963, and that on the 9th of January 1963, he was operated and three gun shots were taken out of his thigh. After examining two witnesses in defence the trial Magistrate was satisfied that there was a prima facie case against the applicants and, accordingly he committed them to the Court of sessions as has been indicated earlier.

(2.) THE applicant's came up in revision before the Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, against the aforesaid order of commitment but it was dismissed.

(3.) SRI P. C. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the applicants, has urged that as the enquiry before the trial Magistrate proceeded on the basis of a complaint the procedure envisaged under Sections 208 to 213, Cr. P. C. was applicable that the applicants had a right to adduce evidence in defence and that the trial Magistrate had committed an illegality in shutting out defence evidence by his refusal to summon the Investigating Officer, Sri Fateh Singh, for his examination in defence. Learned Counsel contends that this has gravely prejudiced the case of the applicants and the order of commitment recorded by the Magistrate without examining the Investigating Officer who was a material witness for the defence stands vitiated in law.