K NARASIMHA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under section 526, Criminal Procedure Code by all the 8 accused in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1966 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, MachiLpatnam. They are all charged under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Avula Krishna in August, 1965, at Machilipatnam, and some, of them for other individual offences under sections 323, and 324, Indian Penal Code The petitioners applied for a transfer of the case from the file of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate on two prior occasions. The Sessions Judge dismifted one suck application on 7th May, 1966, and the Additional Sessions Judge the other application on 28th September, 1966. It is not necessary to set out in any detail all the vicissitudes that this case has undergone. Suffice it to say that even though it is more than one-and-a-half years since the offence Was committed, the preliminary enquiry has not yet been allowed to commence. For a disposal of this application, it is enough to state the events subsequent to the second transfer application on 28th September, 1966.

(2.) P.W. 1, Merugu Jhon Meereiah, a senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, Machil patnam and P.W. 2 are said to be eye-witnesses in this case. They are charged With the murder of one T. Sanjeeva Rao, in Machilipatnam town on 28th. September, 1966, and a preliminary charge-sheet for offtences under section 302, Indian Penal Code, etc., Was filed by the Police on 13th October, 1966, and the same is pending as P.R.C. No. 9 of 1966. P.Ws. 1 and 2 who Were in police custody on that account were produced before the Magistrate on 13 October, 1966, and, though the petitioners Were ready to conduct their cross-examination, the case was adjourned to 24th October, 1966 on the ground that the A.P.P. was absent. On 24th October, 1966 the A.P.P. was present and the Counsel for the petitioners also was ready to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were produced. According to the petitioners the Counsel engaged to assist the prosecution and the brother of the Public Prosecutor, Krishna were taking steps for the release of P.W. 1 on bail, and P.W. 1 declined to be examined till he was so released. The Counsel engaged to assist the prosecution raised an objection that oath could not be administered to P.W. 1 as he Was an accused in a murder case though that objection was overruled by the Magistrate. After it was overruled, the accused (petitioners) expressed their readiness to cross-examine P.W. 1 if he was examined. But P.W. 1 complained of sickness, which the petitioners contended Was feigned. The Magistrate sent P.W. 1 to the District Medical Officer, Krishna for a report as to the state of his health, and adjourned the case to 2nd November, 1966. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not produced before the Court on 2nd November, 1966 from the Sub-jail though the Counsel for the accused was ready, to cross-examine them. The Magistrate then adjourned the case to 14th November, 1966.

(3.) On 1st November, 1966, P.W. 1 in fact got a bail application filed on his behalf by the Counsel assisting the prosecution, and by the brother of the Public Prosecutor before the Sessions Judge, Krishna. It was posted for notice to the Public Prosecutor on 3rd November, 1966, and heard on 5th November, 1966. It Was argued by the brother of the Public Prosecutor for P.W. 1, and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Even though there are five eye-witnesses, P.W. 1 (the 2nd accused) was ordered to be released on bail on 5th November, 1966.