MADHABA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. BIKARTAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Complainant is the petitioner against an order refusing his application for directing the accused persons to appear for identification by P.W. 3.

(2.) Case of the complainant is that opposite party 3 was a candidate for election as Ward-member of Jhinkiria Gram Panchayat. Opposite party 1 was a supporter of opposite party 3 and was canvassing for him. Complainant was canvassing against opposite party 3 being supporter of the rival candidate. Opposite party 1 had earlier requested complaint to sell a piece of land to him. Complainant not having agreed to the same opposite party 1 bore a grudge against him. In the background, on 7-2-85, all the opposite parties-accused armed with weapons like crow-bar, katari, sickle, kodala, lathi came in a body forming unlawful assembly and cut the green fance and various trees which were on the ridge. They removed those trees. When the complainant challenged their illegal action, opposite party 1 claimed that he would forcibly possess the land since the complainant did not agree to sell the same to him. On protest accused persons-opposite parties rushed to assault him. A complaint was filed and cognizance was taken under Ss.379, 427 and 447, I.P.C. and process was issued to the accused persons.

(3.) Before charge, complainant examined P.W. 1 who was cross-examined. P.W. 2 was examined on 29-6-87 and cross-examined that day. In course of his examination-in-chief he stated : "I can identify other accused persons if I see them barring Bikartan". Complainant filed an application on 1-7-1987 for directing the accused persons to appear for identification by P.W. 2 but the same was rejected and case was posted to 9-7-1987. That day, P.W. 3 was examined. During examination-in-chief, he stated : "I can identify other accused persons, if I see them." At this stage, submission was made on behalf of the complainant to defer examination in chief for the purpose of identification by the witnesses which was accepted by the learned Magistrate and further examination in chief was deferred. Complainant filed on that day a petition to that effect and learned Magistrate fixed the proceeding to 15-7-87 for orders giving opportunity to the accused persons to file their objections. Accused persons filed their objections. In the objection, it was stated that an earlier application has been rejected, witnesses know the accused persons and just to harass them the petition has been filed. After hearing parties, learned Magistrate passed an order in Oriya where the only reason is that hearing both parties, submission on behalf of the accused persons appeared to be more forceful and reasonable, keeping the same in view, he rejected the application for directing accused persons to be present in Court to be identified by the witness, P.W. 3. Aggrieved by this order, complainant has filed this revision.