SHYAMA SUNDAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involved in this revision application is whether requirements of proviso to Sub -section (2) of Sec 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') were complied with.

(2.) MAIN plank of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all witnesses named in the complaint petition were not examined and even the complainant himself who is the principal witness was not examined. According to him, such non -examination's vitiated the entire proceeding.

(3.) 'All witnesses' means those whom the complainant chooses to examine. If any witness named in the complaint petition is not examined the complaient has to intimate the Court, that he does not want to examine the said witness. This view has been expressed by me in Shankar Routs case (supra), and in 1988 (II) OLR 288 ; Jaladhar Das and Ors. v. Sridhar Das.