SRINIWAS CHAUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 6-2-1985 passed by Mr. Kedar Nath, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 1981 whereby he has allowed the prosecution to examine the witnesses in the protest petition filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arrah before taking cognizance.

(2.) The Arrah Town police registered a case upon a fardbeyan of Paras Nath Diwedi on 6-2-1976 against the petitioner and six others for the offences under Sections 302, 148 and other offences of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation the informant made a protest against the police and filed a protest petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arrah. The investigation was concluded and Final Form was submitted upon which cognizance was taken and the case was later on, committed to the Court of Session. While the case was in the Court of Mr. Kedar Nath, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution for examination of the witnesses named in the protest petition. The Court has kept the petition alive for consideration after completion of recording of the evidence of the witnesses named in the charge-sheet. Accordingly on 6-2-1985 the matter was again taken up. A rejoinder was also filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused. After hearing both the sides the impugned order was made. Hence the accused-petitioner Sriniwas Chaubey has come up before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the lawfulness of the order mainly on the ground that the witnesses named in the protest petition are not charge-sheeted witnesses. He has also argued that the reason for the examination as required under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been assigned by the learned trial Court. On the other hand, the counsel for the State supported the legality and correctness of the order and replied that the Court can examine any witnesses at any stage of the trial for the ends of justice.