SUDARSAN PANDA Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INFORMANT complainant is the Petitioner. In respect of the self same occurrence a prosecution of the accused opposite parties was initiated by the Police on the basis of a First Information Report and another proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the Petitioner. Under Section 210(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, both the proceedings have been clubbed together and are being heard by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jajpur. The trial of the accused persons has not come to an end and some witnesses are still to be examined.

(2.) ON 10 -3 -1986, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as the complainant, filed two petitions for examination of Kanhu Charan Jena, Brundaban Panda and Sukadev Jena as prosecution witnesses. Kanhu Charan Jena, was named in the complaint petition as a witness. He was examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure but was not named in the charge -sheet as a witness. Brundaban Panda and Sukadev Jena were neither named in the First Information Report nor in the complaint petition as witnesses. Both the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the complainant asserted in the two petitions that they were material witnesses. Added to it, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that Kanhu Charan Jena though examined under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer has been omitted by mistake to be mentioned in the charge -sheet. The learned Magistrate perused the statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence of witnesses previously recorded. He was not satisfied that the three witnesses are material witnesses. Accordingly, the two petitions having been rejected the complainant has approached this Court for directing the learned Magistrate to issue summons to the three witnesses, to be examined.

(3.) MR . G.N. Mohapatra, submitted that the petitions were filed with the object of prolonging the criminal prosecution against the accused persons to their detriment and Courts ought not to permit examination of witnesses who cannot give out anything substantial for the case. The trial court has not given a finding that the petitions have been filed with the said object and accordingly, I am not impressed with the submission at this stage.