K PAPI REDDY Vs. B VENKATESHWARULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Case is filed by A-3 in C.C.No.1012 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for PCR Cases, Warangal, who was impleaded in the above case under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The complaint was filed against A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 500 of I.P.C. After closing of the prosecution, the petitioner was examined as DW-1 on defence side. After completion of the evidence of the petitioner, an application covered by Crl.M.P.No.2365 of 2001 was filed before the said Court praying to add the petitioner as A-3 in the above case basing on the evidence given by him as DW-1 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. The lower Court allowed the said application by directing that the petitioner shall be added as A-3 in the main case to be tried for the offence under Section 500 of I.P.C. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, dated 10-07-2002, preferred the present Revision Case challenging the validity and legality of the order and requesting to set aside the order by contending that the petitioner was examined as a defence witness after closing the prosecution evidence and after examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the defence witness cannot be added as an accused and he will be prejudiced if he is made as an accused. The person cannot be a witness and an accused in the same case. The learned Magistrate ought to have taken into consideration Section 132 of the Evidence Act and the university teachers have submitted a representation to the higher authorities and there is nothing defamatory in that statement. As there are no allegations against the petitioner either in the complaint or in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the Magistrate ought not have allowed the petition to prosecute him for the offence under Section 499 read with 500 of I.P.C.

(3.) The complainant made the following allegations against A-1 and A-2 in the complaint: