BALARAM DAS Vs. HRUDARANJAN SATPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koraput in I.C.C. Case No. 21 of 1986 rejecting two petitions filed by the Petitioner who was the complainant in the Case.

(2.) THE Petitioner filed a complaint case against the opposite party for having committed offences under Sections 186, 451 and 506 I.P.C. When the evidence of the prosecution was being adduced the Petitioner filed two petitions. In the first petition, the Petitioner prayed for issuance of summons to Shri S. Panda former Principal of the D.A.V. College, Koraput and to call for the records of I.C.C. Case No. 17 of 1986. In the second petition, he prayed for calling for the records of enquiry relating to the incident from the Office of the Principal, D.A.V. College. Both the petitions were opposed by the opposite party and after hearing both parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected them as it was not necessary either to summon the witness or to call for the documents.

(3.) BY the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate refused to summon a witness and to call for documents. In either case the order, according to the legal principle referred to above, is interlocutory in character and so the revision is barred under Section 397(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. Nevertheless, if at a subsequent stage it will appear to the learned Judicial Magistrate that the documents shall be necessary for just decision of the case or, if the presence of the witness will be necessary for the same purpose, he may exercise his discretion in accordance with law and pass necessary orders either for calling for documents or for summoning the witness.