(1.) BALAK Ram Petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 328/504 of the Indian Penal Code against Nand Singh, Respondent for an alleged occurrence having taken place on 23rd March, 1971. The complaint was filed on 24th March, 1971. In the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint, Jagat Singh and Data Ram were mentioned as the alleged two eye -witnesses of the occurrence. Jagat Singh also appeared as a witness for the complainant in proceeding under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nand Singh Respondent was summoned as an accused person in the said complaint. During the course of the proceedings the Petitioner's counsel Shri Narinder Singh, Advocate made a statement on 4th September, 1971, giving up Jagat Singh, P.W. as having been won over. The Petitioner also made a statement on the same date giving up Data Ram, another alleged eye -witness of the occurrence on the ground that he had been won over. On the same date, an application was made on behalf of the Petitioner before the learned Magistrate that Ram Chander and Jit Singh, who also allegedly] witnessed the occurrence, be allowed to be produced as prosecution witnesses in the complaint. It may - be mentioned that the names of Ram Chander and Jit Singh were not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint. This prayer was refused by the learned Magistrate, - -vide his order dated 25th September, 1971 and the revision petition against this order having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, - -vide his order dated 13th December, 1971, Criminal Revision No. 8 of 1972 was filed in this Court challenging the above -mentioned orders which revision petition was also dismissed by me, - -vide my order dated 7th February, 1972. Consequently, Ram Chander and Jit Singh were not allowed to be produced in support of the complaint.
(2.) WHEN the complaint went to the Magistrate for further proceedings, an application was made by the Petitioner on 26th February, 1972, that he be allowed to produce Jagat Singh and Data Ram, the two! alleged witnesses of the occurrence whose names had been mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint and who were earlier given up by the statement of the counsel for the Petitioner and by his own statement dated 4th September, 1971, on the ground that the said two witnesses had assured the Petitioner that they would now speak out the true facts before the Court. The learned Magistrate dismissed, this application, - -vide his order dated 15th March, 1972, and the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge having failed, the Petitioner has approached this Court through this revision petition for quashing the said orders and allowing him to produce Jagat Singh and Data Ram in support of his complaint.
(3.) MR . K.K. Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, contends that in fact none of the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to above, has discussed the true import of the provisions of Section 252 of the Code of Criminal. Procedure and the principle of estoppel would apply equally to the cases tried under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Counsel contends that the complainant having once made a statement before the Court that the witnesses relied upon by him having been won over he had no desire to produce them, cannot subsequently come forward and say that he wants to produce the said witnesses at a later stage.