C RAJENDERNATH 1 Vs. K SOHEL TABASSUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.MP No.51 of 2000 refusing to extend time for depositing costs of Rs.1,000-00 as directed in Crl.RP No.277 of 1999 in CCNo.460 of 1994 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) Jt appears that the petitioner, who is the accused in CC No.460 of 1994, filed an application before the Magistrate during his trial for summoning the Investigating Officer in the case which was registered on the basis of his complaint in CC No.624 of 1993 as a defence witness on his behalf in the said CC No.460 of 1994 on the ground that the two cases arise out of the same transaction and are in the nature of case and counter-case. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner challenged the rejection before the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl.RP No.277 of 1999 which was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to summon the witness on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,000-00 as costs by 1-2-2000.

(3.) It is stated that as the petitioner could not deposit the costs in question as he was not in town and had gone for the treatment of his wife, this petition to extend time has been dismissed which is now sought to be challenged in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC.