NANDIGAM IRAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revision Petitions raise a common question of law. They can therefore be disposed of by a common order. In these two cases the petitioners were prosecuted for violation of some provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice Declaration of Stocks Order. The prosecution evidence was closed on 16th April, 1966. The defence witnesses were examined in one case on 19th May, 1966 and in the other case on 21st May, 1966, and the evidence was closed. On 26th May, 1966, an application was filed by the A.P.P.O. under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, requesting the Court to permit some additional documentary evidence to go on record and also to summon the Tahsildar, Kondangal to be examined as a witness. This petition was resisted by the accused. The Munsif- Magistrate. Kondangal by his order dated 26th May, 1966, allowed the petition received the documentary evidence and directed summons to be issued in the name of the Tahsildar so that he can be examined as a witness. It is this order that is now challanged in these Revision Petitions.

(2.) The only contention of Sri Y. Sivarama Sastry, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the Court below has erred in allowing the documentary evidence to go on record and has also erred in summoning the Tahsildar. Before I consider this argument, I must mention a few more facts. One of the defences of the accused was that he had sent his clerk on 2nd and 3rd December, 1965 to the Tahsil's Office to submit the declaration in regard to the stock. But as the Tahsildar was on tour and was not available, the declaration was filed on 4th December, 1965 after his return to the headquarters. This defence was for the first time disclosed only after the prosecution evidence was closed. It look a precise form when the accused produced certain documents to show that the Tahsildar was not at the headquarters on 2nd and 3rd December, 1965. It is true that some vague questions in the cross-examination in this connection were put to the Sub-Inspector by the accused. It is to meet this case set up by the accused in the defence that the prosecution wanted to file the documentary evidence and summon .the Tahsildar. In these circumstances, the Munsif-Magistral allowed the evidence as in his opinion it was necessary " to meet the ends of justicee.

(3.) Now, under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, a criminal Court has got ample powers to receive additional evidence. The section consists of two limbs. The first limb vests discretion in the Court to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness. That he can do at any stage of the inquiry or trial. He can also recall and re-examine any person already examined. In the second part of the section, it is enjoined that if it appears to the Court that the evidence of any person is essential to the just decision of the case, the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine such person. The magistrate, while passing the order under revision, does not mention as to under what part his order falls. It is however, clear from his order that he thought that it was necessary to meet the ends of justice, that is why the additional evidence was admitted to go on record. That obviously falls within the ambit of the second limb of the section. It is not for this Court to interfere in such an order unless of course it is perverse or not passed in good faith. There are no such allegations made in these Revision Petitions.