CHANDRASEKHAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused persons are petitioners in this revision against order of summoning witnesses named in the supplementary charge-sheet.

(2.) On information by P.W. 1 on 26-4-1990 against petitioners, they were charge-sheeted after investigation to be tried for offences under Ss. 147/148/430/436/294/506 Indian Penal Code. Petitioners were committed to Court of Session for facing trial in respect of offences under Ss. 436/437 and 147 Indian Penal Code. When the Investigating Officer was being examined as P.W. 11, learned Associate Public Prosecutor filed an application praying to summon two witnesses in exercise of power under S. 311, Cr. P.C. Subsequently another application was filed by learned Associate Public Prosecutor to summon another two witnesses. Learned trial Judge refused to summon those witnesses on objection of the accused persons. Thereafter an additional charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate under S. 173 (8), Cr. P.C. Learned Magistrate forwarded the additional charge-sheet to the Sessions Court where those four persons have been named as witnesses. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge on receipt of the additional charge-sheet directed to issue summons to the four witnesses. This revision has been filed against the said order.

(3.) Mr. Satyabadi Des, learned counsel for the petitioners assails the order on four grounds. They are :- (i) Trial Court having refused to summon the witnesses on the finding that they are not necessary for just decision of the case, additional charge-sheet including the four witnesses should not have been accepted since privilege to prosecution under S. 173(8), Cr. P.C. has been misused. (ii) Supplementary charge-sheet could not have been entertained without giving opportunity to accused. Since learned Magistrate could not have committed an accused without his appearing or being produced as required under S. 209, Cr. P.C. (iii) Investigating Officer and other witnesses having already been examined, examination of the four witnesses would be prejudicial to the petitioner since they have come prepared to patch the lacuna of the prosecution; and (iv) No sufficient reason has been shown by prosecution for submission of the supplementary charge-sheet.