JIT SINGH RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Jit Singh alias Ranjit Singh, along with another is being tried on a charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Magistrate 1st class at Faridkot. After he had been asked to enter on his defence, he submitted a list of his witnesses and prayed for summoning them. The learned trial Magistrate thereupon passed the following order : "the witnesses cannot be summoned at State expense as the accused have capacity to pay the diet money of the witnesses. The witnesses be summoned if the accused deposit their process fee and diet money. " feeling aggrieved by this order, Jit Singh has come up in revision.

(2.) THE order of the Magistrate refusing to summon the witnesses except on the payment of their process fee and diet money by the petitioner is assailed on the ground that in cases which are cognisable by the police the expenses of summoning all witnesses, including the defence witnesses are to be borne by the state, Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Rule 14 of Chapter 1-D of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, which runs as follows:

(3.) THE learned Assistant Advocate-General points out that the concluding portion of this rule vests a discretion in the trial Magistrate to call upon an accused person to deposit expenses for the attendance of his witnesses and if the discretion is properly exercised it should not be interfered with by a superior Court. He further contends that the last sentence of this rule laying down that "in ordinary warrant-cases, however, the cost of causing the attendance of accused's necessary witnesses is usually borne by Government" is just a statement of practice that has been prevailing and has no binding force. He further urges that the rule in question has no statutory force but is just in the nature of advice to the subordinate Courts for their guidance in order to ensure uniformity and smooth working. In this connection he relies upon observations of Blacker, J. while referring a similar question for consideration to a larger Bench. That reference became infructuous, but the reference order is reported in Nanak Chand v. Suraj parkash, AIR 1938 Lah 693. The learned Judge took note ot the earliest decision of the Lahore High Court on the point reported as Sayed Habib v. Emperor, AIR 1929 lah 23 (2), which was subsequently followed in Habib v. Mehdi Hussain 108 Ind cas 907 (Lah), Ram Narain v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Lah 481, Parshotam Das v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Lah 919 and Khushi Muhammad v. Abdulla Khan, AIR 1937 lah 458.