T KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. DEEP CHAND AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.233 of 1999 on the file of the court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. They are being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 384,324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.). The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on a complaint given by the first respondent alleging that the first petitioner, who is Assistant Commissioner of Police, and petitioners 2 and 3, who are Sub-Inspector of Police and Constable respectively, beat the first respondent and wrongfully restrained him from 4-00 p.m. on 16-2-1999 till 8-00 a.m. on 17-2-1999. In his complaint, the petitioner cited M/s. Suresh, S/o.G.Laxmaiah; Shaik Zaheer, S/o. Shaik Peeran; and Mohd. Jahangir as witnesses and the case is coming up for trial.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.2977 of 2004 on the file of the Court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, purportedly under sub-section (2) of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking permission of the Court to examine M/s. Ramesh Chand Sharma, S/o. Sri Narayan Sharma; and Sri Satyanarayana Pershed Tiwari, S/o. Mahinder Pershad Tiwari. In his petition, he alleged that Accused No. 1 got kidnapped the witnesses named in the complaint, that L.Ws.1 and 2, the witnesses, were warned not to come to the Court on pain of facing foisted cases, and that the whereabouts of L.Ws.1 and 2 are not known.

(3.) The petitioners herein opposed the application filed by the first respondent. They contended that after a gap of five years, if new witnesses were allowed to examine, the same would be prejudicial to the defence of the accused and would amount to filling up lacunae in prosecution case. By impugned order dated 28-9-2004, the Court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad allowed the petition. The learned Magistrate placed reliance on the decision of Amarchand v. Arum Kumar and Kolangarakath Kammukutty v. Kodakkattokath Puthenveettil Muhammed and offters. The learned Magistrate also observed that if after examining all the witnesses, a charge is framed against the accused or proceedings are initiated for discharge of the accused, it shall be open to the accused to cross-examine all the witnesses.