KARTIK SANDH, Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28th of October, 1965 the informant (p.w.1) filed a petition asking for summoning of Basanta Kumar Babu, son of Chasiram Babu as a prosecution witness. By then the prosecution had been closed and the accused had been examined under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure but the accused did Dot start examining the defence witness. Against the order of the Magistrate allowing the prayer of the informant, the accused persons filed a criminal revision before the Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Bolangir. The learned Additional District Magistrate has recommended that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct summoning of Basanta Kumar Babu at the instance of the informant when the case was conducted by the, Court Sub -Inspector.

(2.) THE learned Additional District Magistrate should not have wasted Court's time by making this frivolous reference. It is well settled that this Court is not bound to interfere in revision even if some of errors of law are committed unless it results in miscarriage of Justice.