J B ROY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed against the order of the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Srikakulam given on 26/07/1966 whereby the learned Magistrate directed the issue of summonses in the names of eight witnesses whom the prosecution wanted to examine. It appears that the Station House Officer, Srikakulam Town filed a charge-sheet against the accused under Section 304-A, I.P.C. Along with the charge-sheet, a list of witnesses also was filed according to which three witnesses were mentioned as eye witnesses. One of them died before the commencement of the trial. The prosecution therefore produced P.WS. 2 and 3, the other eye witnesses. They however were declared hostile and permission was granted to the prosecution to cross-examine them.

(2.) Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application under Sections 251-A (7) and 540, Cr. P.C. seeking permission to examine eight more witnesses cited in the application. It was stated that out of the eight witnesses, witnesses mentioned in Serial Nos. 1 to 4 were examined in the course of investigation while the remaining were examined by the police only after P.W.2 had turned hostile in the Court

(3.) The petition was opposed by the accused. The principal contention was that since the names of the four witnesses who where examined during the course of investigation were not included in the list filed along with the charge-sheet and the remaining four witnesses were examined only after the charge-sheet was filed, the prosecution had no right to cite these witnesses and the Court cannot grant any permission to examine them as witnesses.