BALLOO Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an accused person's revision from the order dated 5.12.1989 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, in S.T. No. 50/87 rejecting the applicant's prayer for summoning a contractor, named, Udhavdas D. Sundarani, Sindhi Colony. Beena, along with certain muster -rolls, work order and some other papers. Besides, the learned trial Judge rejected the prayer for summoning an (unnamed) hand writing expert.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Deputy Government Advocate. The applicants learned counsel, Shri B.R. Sharma, has stated that he does not have a copy of any application that may have been made by the applicant in the trial Court. A list of defence witnesses (Annexure P/1) is all that the applicant has offered for consideration here.

(3.) IT is, therefore, clear that at the time the prayer was made, there was no justification for summoning any hand writing expert because it was not known whether there was any paper on which prosecutrix Ramwati's thumb impression was there.