G V REDDY Vs. OTS ADVERTISING PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the accused questioning the order of the learned Magistrate, who in spite of allowing Criminal M.P.No.4839 of 1999 in C.C.No.410 of 1998, filed by the petitioner for granting permission to examine four witnesses on his behalf, refusing to give warrants or fresh summons to those of the witnesses who failed to attend Court, to give evidence on his behalf.

(2.) THE accused, who was permitted to examine witnesses on his behalf can only pay process. He may or may not be having control over the witnesses cited by him. THErefore when Court grants permission to the accused to examine witnesses on his behalf, has a right to seek assistance of the Court t enforce the attendance of such of those witnesses who fail to appear after receipt of summons, or on whom the police are not able to serve the summons. One witness who was served attended the Court and was examined on behalf of the accused. THE police either were unable to or did not serve summons on the other witnesses, whom the accused wanted to examine. THErefore accused has a right to seek assistance of the Court to enforce the attendance of those witnesses. Closing the evidence on behalf of the accused, without permitting to take steps to enforce the attendance of other witnesses allowed to be examined by him, amounts to denial of a fair opportunity to put forth his case. THErefore, the petition is allowed, and the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, shall take steps to secure presence of the witnesses cited on behalf of the petitioner, on petitioner paying necessary process if any payable within the time to be granted by it.