STATE Vs. PADAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference must succeed on a short point, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, had summoned the Doctor as a prosecution witness vide his Order dt: 9 -9 -1983, The Doctor was Chief Medical Officer, Anantnag and was in the employment of the State. Therefore, he was required to be summoned. Without waiting for his service, on 14 -11 -1983 the learned Magistrate closed the evidence of the Doctor. The learned Sessions Judge has recommended that this order of the Magistrate be set aside. I agree with the recommendations of the learned Sessions Judge. The order dated: 14 -11 -1983 passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal and eroneous. Once the Magistrate has taken upon himself to summon the Doctor who was a Govt. employee, he should not have closed his evidence without any summons having been served on the Doctor. The impugned order, therefore is set aside and the learned Ch. Judicial Magistrate Anantnag is directed to summon the Doctor witness in terms of his Order dated: 9 -9 -1983 afresh and proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law.