AVTAR SINGH BHASIN Vs. HARI PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C. 1973, Shri Avtar Singh Bhasin petitioner has assailed the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I), Shimla dt. 12-4-1989 passed in case No. 38/2 of 1986, whereby the application moved by the State under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal P.C. for summoning some witnesses was rejected.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner had made a report to the police on the basis of which First Information Report Ex. PW 7/A was registered, The allegations of the prosecution are that property known as 'Garden House Jakhu' at Shimla was under the exclusive possession of Sardar Balwant Singh father of the petitioner and respondent No. 1. During his life-time Sardar Balwant Singh leased out the property in favour of the wife of the petitioner who is stated to be in employment at Delhi. The petitioner had taken two rooms along with kitchen, bath room and store for his own residential purpose. The petitioner alleged that on 21-6-1985 when he had gone out of Shimla, he asked Chowkidar Gian Chand to look after the premises. Gian Chand had informed him telegraphically on 25-6-1985 that the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 had forcibly entered into the premises by breaking the lock. Respondent No. 1 also threatened the petitioner on telephone to do way with his life. On these allegations, the police carried out the investigation. After the completion of the investigation, challan was laid before the trial Court against Harpal Singh and his sons Charanjit Singh and Paramjit Singh under Sections 448/454 of the Penal Code. During the trial, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the statements of the respondents accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 31-5-1988. Thereafter the case was listed for recording the evidence of the defence witnesses. It was at this stage that the application was moved by the petitioner through the State for summoning four witnesses, namely, Jagdeep Singh along with the original lease deed, Pratap Chand Dewan, an official concerned of the custodian, Himachal Pradesh along with the record and official concerned of the custodian, Haryana, along with the record, as prosecution witnesses.

(3.) This prayer was contested by the accused. However, after hearing the parties, the trial judge dismissed the prayer of the prosecution by the impugned order. The relevant portion of that order reads as under :