STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHANUPRASAD SHYAMLAL JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 1966 arose in the following manner.

(2.) THE accused Bhanuprasad was being tried for the alleged offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. One Sitalprasad Havildar of Nagpur Central Prision was examined as a prosecution witness on 15th September 1966. He was examined, cross-examined, and discharged. Thereafter some other evidence was recorded on the same day and at the end of the day, the Police Prosecutor who was conducting the case on behalf of the prosecution, filed an application seeking permission of the Court to recall the witness Sitalprasad Havildar and to contradict the said witness with his statement recorded by the investigating officer during investigation.

(3.) THIS application was opposed on behalf of the accused as it would cause prejudice to the case. It was contended on behalf of the accused that this witness could not be recalled at the instance of the Prosecutor to afford him an opportunity to contradict him under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accepting the request of the Police Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate granted the application for recalling the witness Sitalprasad Havildar. The accused therefore filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, challenging the said order.