DALIP SINGH GUJAR SINGH Vs. R P BISWASJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision against the order of Shri V. K. Kapur, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, dated the 12th May 1964, whereby he permitted to respondent (complainant) to examine three witnesses who were not named in the list of prosecution witnesses filed with the complaint.

(2.) ON 19th October, 1962, Ram Lubhaya P. W. was examined, who according to the petitioner's learned counsel did not support the prosecution. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Shri M. L Kakkar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, new Delhi, and it was on 17th May, 1963. that the evidence of Laxman Das, another prosecution witness, was taken. The petitioner made an application to summon a file for the purpose of cross-examination of this witness on 7th June. 1963, with the object of bringing out that the witness had been coerced into making a statement favourable to the prosecution as the Customs Authorities had raided his premises on 30th April, 1963. prior to his coming into the witness-box. This application was rejected by the trial Court, and on the petitioner's transfer application, the case was sent to the Court of Shri S. C. Vaish, Sub-Divisional magistrate. New Delhi On 8th January, 1964, when the case was taken up by Shri s. C. Vaish, Magistrate First Class, the complainant examined three witnesses, whose names appeared in the list furnished with the complaint, but those witnesses could not be cross-examined as the counsel for the accused was absent. The complainant, however, closed his case, and the learned Magistrate adjourned further proceedings to 21st January, 1964, for consideration of the question of framing the charge.

(3.) IN the meantime, the accused again moved the Court of Session for transfer. The learned Sessions Judge. Delhi, by his order, dated the 12th March 1964, however, rejected his prayer for transfer but directed the Magistrate to recall the three witnesses whom the complainant had already examined, so that the accused should have an opportunity to cross-examine them. Before those witnesses could be recalled, or the question of framing the charge considered by the Magistrate the complainant put in an application purporting to be under Section 252 of the criminal Procedure Code on 19th April, 1964, for permission to summon three additional witnesses, namely, Shri G. D. Thapar, Inspector of Customs, Shri B. N soni and Shri Trilok Chand (who were never named in the list of witnesses filed with the complaint) on the plea that they had to prove the statement of the accused alleged to have been recorded by the Customs Officer, which was one of the documents filed with the complaint. This belated request for adding to the list of the complainant's witness was sought to be justified on the plea that it was an unfortunate commission from the list of witnesses filed with the complaint, and their evidence in the case had become necessary as the order of the learned sessions Judge directing the recalling of three witnesses who had already been examined had "brought about a complete change of circumstances, and it necessitated formal proof of his statement".