LALTU Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision came up before us upon a reference made by Tripathi, J.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be briefly stated. One Ram Lal filed a complaint against Laltu applicant under Section 325 I. P. C. in the court of a Magistrate 1st Class at Kanpur. After recording the statements of some witnesses produced by the complainant, the Magistrate framed against the applicant a charge under Section 325 I. P. C. on 22-1-1963. The Magistrate then fixed 5-2-1963 for recording evidence under Section 256 Cr. P. C. noting in his order that the applicant desired to cross-examine all the witnesses examined by the complainant before the framing of the charge. It appears from the record that on 23-1-1963 the complainant filed a list containing the names of six witnesses proposed to be examined by him under Section 256 Cr. P. C. and the Magistrate ordered summonses to be issued for the said witnesses. The list included the name of one Sri Sinha. Sri Sinha was actually examined on behalf of the applicant on 27-2-1963. On the same day an application was moved before the Magistrate on behalf of the applicant stating that as Sri Sinha had not been named in the list submitted by the complainant under Section 252 Cr. P. C. , he could not be examined under Section 256 Cr. P. C. , and praying that his evidence be discarded. After hearing arguments on the said application the Magistrate, by his order dated 19-3-1963, held that the complainant was entitled to produce "further evidence under Section 256 Cr. P. C. ," meaning thereby that he was entitled to produce Sri Sinha although he was not mentioned in the list. Against this order the applicant filed a revision in the court of Session but it was dismissed. Thereupon he came in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE learned single Judge before whom this application originally came up for hearing found a sharp cleavage of judicial opinion on the meaning of the words "any remaining witnesses for the prosecution" occurring in Section 256 Cr. P. C. , and he, therefore, thought it expedient that the matter be considered by a larger Bench. The main question for determination before us is whether the words "any remaining witnesses for the prosecution" in Section 256 Cr. P. C. refer only to those witnesses whose names have been given by the complainant under Section 252 (2) Cr. P. C. , or whether they are comprehensive enough to cover even those witnesses whose names have not been given under the aforesaid provision.