SOMIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of the Munsif-Magistrate,. Sangareddy, refusing to call for 22 documents at the instance of the accused at the enquiry in P. R. C. No. 6 of 1966.

(2.) The short question that arises in this revision is as to the scope interpretation and the application of the provisions of section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the present case. The accused petitioners have been charge-sheeted by the Police under section 381, 467, 409 read with 109, 102-B, 414, 471 read with 109, I.P. C. and the enquiry in P. R. C. No. 6 of 1966 was pending before the Magistrate who has examined some witnesses. Criminal M. P. No. 436 of 1965 by the petitioners under section 94, Criminal Procedure Code requesting to call for the production of documents mentioned therein was allowed on 7th December, 1966. Thereafter, on 6th February, 1967. an application under section 207-A, Criminal Procedure Code to summon and examine Sri Seshchalapathi Rao was allowed by the Magistrate. P. Ws. 1 to 4. were examined by 18th April, 1967. As Sri Seshachalapathi Rao was absent for some adjournments, he could not be examined and the enquiry was posted to 12th September, 1967, when the present application was filed. The committal Court rejected the application as it was belated and not bonafide and there was no necessity or desirability to call for those documents at that stage. The revision to the Sessions Court to make a reference to this Court to set aside the order of the Magistrate was also dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Dixit, for the accused, strenuously and emphatically contended (a) that the Magistrate should have exercised the power under section 94 of the Code in favour of the accused and called for the documents, and (b) that his failure to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the accused is illegal, improper and unjust and (c) that the order is liable to be quashed. The Public Prosecutor contended contra. The question for determination is, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the accused-petitioners are entitled under section 94 of the Code to call for the production of the 22 documents as prayed for by them at this stage.