JASVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 19.3.09 passed by the 1st ACJM, Saharanpur in complaint case no.1514/09, Mahendra Singh Vs. Jasvir Singh and others whereby the Magistrate on the basis of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses Santosh Singh, Mazid and Kulveer Singh summoned the revisionists for the offences punishable under Sections 307/504, IPC. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the record. Mr. Singhal placed reliance only one point in support of this revision. He argued that in the present case the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 202, Cr.P.C. were not complied with, hence, the order is liable to be set aside. In a Full Bench case of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2001(2) JIC 285, Gottipati Subba Naidu and others Vs. Talluri Mahalakshmamma and another it has been held that it is not necessary for the complainant to produce all the witnesses in enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. In this ruling reference was made of a ruling of the Allahabad High Court given in the case of Jumman Vs. State of U.P., 1988 Cri LJ 199 in which the Allahabad High Court expressed the view that only those witnesses can be examined in the trial which were examined before the Magistrate. THIS view was endorsed by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the case of Rosy and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2000(1) JIC 815 (SC) the Supreme Court has opined that the aforesaid provisions contained in the proviso to sub- section 2 of Section 202, Cr.P.C. is only for safeguarding the interest of the accused during the trial in the court of Sessions and its non-compliance would not vitiate the proceedings. In the case of Kallu Pal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (1) JIC 891 (All) it has been held that the complainant is bound to produce only those witnesses of facts whom he intends to produce in the court of Sessions. The witnesses of facts who are not produced under Section 200 or 202, Cr.P.C. cannot be produced by him in the Court of Sessions. The complainant is not bound to produce those witnesses of fact whose names are though mentioned in the complaint but who are not intended to be produced by him in the court of Sessions. Therefore, in view of the above rulings, it is very much clear that the choice rest with the complainant as to how many witnesses should or should not be produced at the stage of Section 202, Cr.P.C. Thus, if in the present case all the witnesses shown by the complainant in the list were not produced, by that the impugned order cannot be termed as bad and cannot be set aside. THIS revision, therefore, has no merits and is, hereby, dismissed.