PRADEEP SATAPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 18.7.06 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. Case No. 1792 of 2005 refusing to summon witnesses and directing the petitioner to produce all his witnesses on the date fixed:

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the accused and opposite party No.2 is the complainant in I.C.C. Case No. 1792 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Bhubaneswar. The accused/petitioner appeared and the trial of the case was commenced. After examination of the complainant (PW1), two applications were filed on behalf of the petitioner on 18.7.2006, one for permitting the accused/petitioner to be a witness and the other petition was for summoning some official witnesses. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate by order dated 18.7.2006 allowed the prayer of the petitioner to examine himself as a defence witness, but rejected his second prayer for summoning the official witnesses. Instead, he directed the accused petitioner to produce all his defence witnesses.

(3.) Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order of the learned S.D.J.M. refusing to issue summons to the official witnesses is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court was satisfied that the evidence of those witnesses is essential for proper adjudication of the case, but, at the same time, instead of issuing summons for their examinations on behalf of the defence, directed the petitioner to produce the defence witnesses knowing very well that those witnesses cannot be produced by the accused/petitioner as they are officials of I.T. Department and Judicial Department. He further submitted that the petitioner is willing to bear the cost of those witnesses for their examination.