JAGAT RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, allowing the prosecution to produce Dr. Gandotra, Munshi Singh and Rasila as witnesses in support of its case.

(2.) IT appears that during the trial an application was made by the prosecution on 24th June, 1966 praying that Dr. Gandotra be allowed to be produced as a witness. On 25th June, 1966 another application was made by the prosecution before the Sessions Judge seeking permission to produce Munshi Singh and Rasila as witnesses. Objections were taken on behalf of the accused to the production of these witnesses as they were neither examined in the Committing Court nor were their names included in the list of witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge overruled the objections raised by the accused and allowed the prosecution to produce the witnesses mentioned in the applications. Against that order the accused have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Ishwar Singh that the Sessions Judge had erred in allowing the witnesses to be produced at the stage when all the prosecution evidence had been recorded by the Sessions Judge. It is contended that the production of these witnesses would certainly prejudice the case of the accused. My attention has been drawn to Section 286, Cr. P. C. which reads as under: 286 (1) In a case triable by jury, when the jurors have been chosen or, in any other case, when the Judge is ready to hear the case, the prosecutor shall open his case by reading from the Ranbir Penal Code or other law the description of the offence charged, and stating shortly by what evidence he expects to prove the guilt of the accused. 2 The prosecutor shall then examine his witnesses. It is argued that the word 'evidence' used in Section 286 (1) means the witnesses whom the prosecution has produced before the Committing Court and no other witnesses other than those produced in the Committing Court or mentioned in the list of witnesses furnished before the Sessions Court can be produced by the prosecutor. This contention is untenable. Under Section 286 (1), Cr. P. C. it is the right of the prosecution to produce as many witnesses as they want to prove the guilt of the accused. There is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which precludes the prosecutor from producing the witnesses other than those who nave already been examined in the Committing Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 286 allows the prosecutor to produce his witnesses without any irritation irrespective of the fact whether these witnesses were examined in the Committing Court or not. It is true that the prosecutor cannot ask the Court to summon those witnesses who are not mentioned in the list filed in the Sessions Court, but if the witnesses are present in Court and the prosecutor wants to produce them in order to prove the guilt of the accused there is nothing to debar him from doing so. In this view I am supported by the ruling of the Supreme Court, Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab, in which it is held as under: