ANANDA PANDA Vs. GOPI SAHU AND 4 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE prosecution witnesses including the complainant were examined on 4 -9 -1964 and the case was adjourned to 22 -9 -1964 for consideration of the charge. On that day charges were framed under Sections 43 and 379, Indian Penal Code. The charges being explained, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Without following the procedure prescribed in Section 256, Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 30 -10 -1964 for cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses. On that day the case was adjourned to 19 -11 -1964 on the application of both the parties. No witness for the complainant was present. The Court passed orders to the effect. "Complainant to take steps to produce his witnesses on that date".

(2.) SECTION 256, Sub -section (1) may be quoted -

(3.) MR . Mohanty, however, contends that the complainant had given the undertaking to produce the witnesses and such the order of the Magistrate is justified. His contention is correct so far as it relates to order dated 19 -11 -1964 wherein he mentioned that the complainant undertook to produce all his witnesses. This undertaking was, however, in respect of the next date of adjournment, that is, 14 -12 -1964. On that date the complainant did not give any further undertaking. The Magistrate merely passed an order that the complainant was to take steps to produce his witnesses on 7 -1 -1965. This order is legal. The Magistrate shirked his responsibilities and put those illegally on the complainant. The complainant was therefore not responsible for the non -appearance of other prosecution witnesses on 7 -1 -1965 and that the order expunging their evidence cannot be upheld.