VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for quashing the order passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad in Crl.No. 165/1978 in C C. No. 38/l975.

(2.) Previous to this petition, the petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 156/78 when he enterfd upon the defence after the prosecution evidence was closed. In that pelition he requested the Court to issue summons for the attendance of the 13 persons as defence witnesses mentioned in his petition. The learned Judge ordered for the issuance of summons on the condi'ion of the petitioner depositing probable T.A. and D.A. permissiabie to the witnesses under the rules within one week. Then the petitioner riled the pelition Cr. M P. No. 165/1978 explaining the pecuniary circumstances which prevented him from depositing the amount directed by the Court as per rhe orders mentioned above. In explaining the pecuniary circumstances under which he was placed, he submitted that he is being paid a meagre subsistence allowance of Rs. 200/- per month which is hardly sufficient to meet even the necessities of his family consisting of himself, his wife and tour children and eversince his suspension, he shifted his family to his native place Koduru one of the worst affected villages due to the recent cyclone in Divi Taluk. He also submitted that due to suspension, education of his children was adversely aftected and he was not able to prosecute their studies. He also submitted that his wife is a sickly lady and her eyes were aitected requiring medical treatment which he could not afford in the present days of misery. He, therefore, submitted that he is unable to deposit the expenses of the defence witnesses not only within the time specified in the order, but also he has no means nor capacity whatever to comply with the directions of the Court. He prayed the Court to issue summons to the witnesses without insisting upon the condition to deposit their expenses or else he will suffer irreparable loss. But the Court declined to modify the previous order and issue summons to the witnesses without insisting upon the condition to deposit their expenses. The order is to the following effect;-

(3.) Sri Bali Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that while the Court was satisfied with the need to issue summons for the attendance of the defence witnesses, as the evidence of the defence witnesses on which the accused relied appears to be necessary and the petition is not thus vexatious, the Court ought to have appreciated the pecuniary circumstances under which the accused was placed and ought to have found that the accused has no means or capacity to pay the expenses as directed by the Court for summoning the defence witnesses. He also contends that if the witnesses sought to be examined by him cannot be summoned, he would he denied his valuable right to examine defence witnesses in support of his case. He further contends that sub-section (2) of section 243 Cr.P.C, gives the right to the Court to issue process for the attendance of defence witnesses unless the court considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of jusiice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing. As the learned Special Judge has not refused the petition and as he did not feel that the petition was vexatious or intended to delay or defeat the ends of justice and in fact he ordered for the issuance of summons, it is clear that he appreciated the bona fides and the genuinenes of the petition. But when he insisted upon the payment of expenses for the issuance of summons inspite of the fact that the petitioner explained the pecuniary circumstances by filing a separate petition with affidavit, the learned Judge has denied practically the right given to him to examine his witnesses in support of his case.