SURINDER MOHAN Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 16-1- 2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Hamirpur whereby he was directed to deposit the expenses of the witnesses to be summoned by him.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner along with two others, was being tried for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner and the other co-accused were examined by the learned Special Judge under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The co- accused of the petitioner stated that they would not produce any evidence in defense whereas, the petitioner cited large number of witnesses and also wanted to examine and cross-examine the then Chief Minister, Director General of Police, Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and many other officers/official witnesses. After examining the rival contentions and keeping in view the nature of the charges of corruption against the petitioner vide order dated 16-1-2006 the petitioner was permitted by the learned Special Judge to examine the witnesses cited by him along with the record 'subject to the payment of road and diet money' to be deposited within one week whereafter, the defense witnesses were ordered to be summoned for the different dates in seriatim, which has been assailed in this petition.

(3.) Vide order dated 6.2.2006, this Court ordered that the witnesses named in the list be summoned subject to the condition that in case the order is upheld, the petitioner shall pay such amount as may be calculated according to the prescribed scale.