EMPEROR Vs. MUKHTIYARKHAN TAJAMULKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the prosecution are calling one Ismail Amin Golandas, one of the panchas, to prove a panchnama prepared on August 12, 1941. This particular panch was not examined either before the Committing Magistrate or before Mr. Justice Blackwell in the earlier trial.

(2.) MR. Pardivala on behalf of the accused takes an objection that he is handicapped in his defense by reason of the fact that the statement of the evidence that this witness is going to give has not been furnished to him by the prosecution.

(3.) I, therefore, see nothing in the objection raised by Mr. Pardivala, and I rule that, as far as panch witnesses are concerned, it is not necessary for the prosecution to supply their statements to the defense provided copies of panchnamas have already been furnished.