BASANTA KUMAR PAIKRAY Vs. BHARAT KUMAR MANGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 28.10.1984 at about 10.15 A.M. opposite party No.3 lodged an information at Banpur Police- station which was registered as P.S. Case No. 108 of 1984. In the First Information Report he alleged that petitioner and nine others committed offences under sections 323, 337, 341 and 426 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. On receipt of the First Information Report in Court G.R. Case No. 2120f 1984 was registered in which charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and three others.

(2.) Near about the same time, petitioner lodged an F.I.R. in the Police-station registered as P.S. Case No. 107 of 1984. On receipt of the said F.I.R. G.R. Case No. 213 of 1984 has been registered in Court, Charge-sheet was submitted against opposite parties under sections 341/323/324/426/506/34 I.P.C.

(3.) An Assistant Public Prosecutor has been appointed by the State Government or the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First class, Banpur who is to conduct all cases registered as G.R. cases in that Court. On 12.2.1986, he examined two witnesses in-chief in G.R. Case No. 212 of 1984. When the witnesses were to be examined in G.R. Case No.213 of 1984, petitioner filed an application to permit the prosecution to be conducted by the Advocate engaged by him alleging that G.R. Case No. 212 of 1984 and G.R. Case No. 213 of 1984 and counter cases to each either. In one case, the informant an& principal witnesses are the accused in the other case, the official witnesses being common in both cases. In such circumstances, the facts are such that acceptance of prosecution case in one would make the prosecution case in the other false. Petitioner had the apprehension the communication made by him as the informant witness to the Assistant Public Prosecutor may be utilised for his prosecution in the other case.