KUMAR OBERAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 11-2-1984 whereby the trial court allowed the application made on behalf of the prosecution, under sections 207 read with section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for recalling the complainant, Rajkumar Khatri (P.W.1) who has in his testimony deposed that prior to lodging of the first information report at the police station Gorakhpur he had given a written report about the incident at the aforesaid Police Station stating there in the names of the process server and the other persons present on the spot during the incident.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, Raj Kumar khatri (P. W. 1) had obtained a decree of eviction against the accused Kumar Oberai who was residing as a tenant in his house. It further appears that on 14-10-1981 in the morning, the process server went to the spot to deliver possession of the tenanted premises to the complainant/land-lord. The complainant went along with the process-server and others to take the possession. The accused resisted to delivery possession during which abuses were hurled and it is alleged that the accused caused injuries to the complainant with knife. According to the testimony of Raj Kumar Khatri (P.W. 1), after incident, the process server called the Police by phone and he wrote on the warrant of possession that he could not obtain the possession of the premises. According to his testimony, the Police had arrived on the spot, though he is not aware of the names of the police personnel. This witness had further stated that thereafter, he went to the Police station to lodge the report. The first information report lodged by the complainant is Ex. p.1. The report was lodged at 8.55 a.m.

(3.) After due investigation the accused was prosecuted for offence under sections 186 and 326 of the Penal Code. The complainant, Rajkumar Khatri (PW.l) was examined on 18-3-1983 and during his cross examination he testified that prior to the lodging of the report Ex. P-i, he had given a written report which contained the names of process server and the witnesses at the Police station. It is this written report which by the impugned order has been allowed to be taken on record and in order to prove the lame, the complainant whose evidence was closed on 15-7-1983, has been recalled.