LAWS(ORI)-1958-7-7

RAMKRISHNA BAGARTI AND 2 ORS. Vs. THE STATE

Decided On July 15, 1958
Ramkrishna Bagarti Appellant
V/S
THE STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to revise the conviction of the Petitioners under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of fine of Rs. 40/. each passed by a 3rd Class Magistrate of Bargarh which was upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge. The prosecution case, as believed by the lower Courts, is that the Petitioners committed criminal trespass in respect of a part of plot No. 632 of the complainant and unyoked the plough of the complainant while he was ploughing the disputed land with the help of his field servant.

(2.) THE Petitioners appear to have put forward their claim of possession over the disputed land though it was not so clearly stated in their statement. The two courts believed the prosecution evidence as regards the complainant's possession over the land. As regards the incident also, the courts laid great importance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. Special emphasis was laid on the evidence of P.W. 4, who is said to be a dis -interested witness.

(3.) MR . Chatterji relied on a recent decision of the Madras High Court reported in, A.I.R. 1957 Mad 466. In that case when the prosecution, during trial, wanted to examine additional witnesses, an objection was taken by the accused and when that objection was over -ruled the accused moved the High Court in revision. The High Court held that the examination of additional witnesses after the commencement of the trial should not be allowed tightly without a suitable and appropriate explanation from the prosecution and that the evidence of such witnesses may be expunged from the record. But this case does not support the extreme proposition raised by Mr. Chatterji that the evidence of witnesses is wholly inadmissible under all circumstances. The question ultimately depends upon whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused as regards his right to cross -examine the prosecution witnesses by their belated production and in considering the question of prejudice the fact that an objection was taken at the earliest opportunity to such examination is very relevant.