SHUBRATI KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is being prosecuted under the Motor Vehicles Act on a police report. The report contains the names of two witnesses to be examined for the prosecution; this is in compliance with Section 204 (1-A) which requires a list of witnesses. A summons was issued against the applicant and he appeared before the court and pleaded not guilty. The court started trial following the procedure prescribed in Sections 241 etc. Three witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the two mentioned in the report. The prosecution then applied for an adjournment to examine some more witnesses and in spite of the applicant's protest, the court has issued summonses against them. The applicant challenges the court's order on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to issue summonses against witnesses whose names were not to be found in the list given under Section 204 (1-A). I do not find any force in the contention.

(2.) The power of a Magistrate to summon witnesses in summons cases is fully and exhaustively laid down in Section 244. It contains no restriction upon his power, it does not restrict it to issuing summonses against the witnesses whose names are given in the list prepared under Section 204 (1-A). The power is wide enough to include issuing summonses against other witnesses also. The magistrate is bound to hear all witnesses produced by the complainant in support of the prosecution; the words used in Sub-section (1) are :

(3.) Section 204 (1-A) simply requires that no summons shall be issued against the accused unless a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. That provision ceases to be of any applicability or use after a summons has been issued to the accused. It only imposes a condition on the issue of a summons against the accused and once a summons is issued it ceases to be of any relevancy and does not govern the subsequent procedure. It does not lay down that only those witnesses whose names are given in the list can be examined by the prosecution. The legislature added this provision by the Amendment Act of 1955 but did not choose to make any amendment in Section 244. It was conceded, and rightly conceded, by Sri Hasin Ahmad that prior to the amendment it could not be said that the power of a Magistrate was confined to issuing summonses against the witnesses whose names were mentioned in the complaint or the report. Since the language of Section 244 remains the same, it must be given the same meaning which it bore before the Amendment Act of 1955. Its meaning cannot change merely because the legislature added Section 204 (1-A), which does not deal at all with the power of a Magistrate to issue summonses against prosecution witnesses; if the legislature had intended that summonses should be issued only against the witnesses whose names are given id the list it would have made a suitable amendment in Section 244 also and when it did not do so it must he held that it did not intend to curtail the then existing power of a Magistrate to issue summonses against witnesses. The court, therefore, in the present case did not act illegally in issuing summonses against the additional prosecution witnesses.