RAJU KUMAR DEY Vs. PARULSARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite notice.

(2.) This criminal revision has been carried from the order dated 7.11.94 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 31/94 by which the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr. PC praying to allow it to examine three persons as witnesses, so named by one Nirmal Chakraborty, while depositing as PW- 9, was rejected.

(3.) Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that by rejecting the prayer for examination of the persons namely, Sadhan Dutta, Subhash Sen and Sukumar Ghosh being the material witnesses in the case, the court committed an error of law inasmuch as the refusal has greatly prejudiced the interest of the petitioner. His contention is that the examination of those witnesses was essential to arrive at the just decision of the case in hand but the Learned Judge misinterpreted the provision of Section 311 Cr.PC and thereby acted illegally refusing to examine the witnesses as prayed for by the petitioner.