STATE Vs. MOHD SULTAN SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question of law and of general public importance arises for determination in this reference made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar: Whether a person not examined during the investigation by

(2.) IN a case State v. Mohd. Sultan Sheikh for an offence under Section 304-A. R. P. C. the prosecution cited five witnesses including two eye witnesses in its calendar of witnesses. During the examination of one of the eye witnesses, by name Haji Ghulam Ahmad Najar, it transpired that person by name of Mushtaq Ahmad was also present at the time of the occurrence and had witnessed the occurrence. The prosecution on the very first day of hearing, made an application before the trial court praying that it may be allowed to adduce additional evidence in the case. That application was not disposed of on that day but was posted for orders on the closing of the prosecution case. The learned trial court, by its order dated 5-8-1975, rejected the said application made by the prosecution. Aggrieved against the order of the learned trial Judge rejecting the prayer of the prosecution to adduce additional evidence in the case, the State went up in revision to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, who vide his order dated 21-2-1976, has recommended to this Court that the prosecution be allowed to adduce additional evidence and the order of the Magistrate rejecting the prayer be quashed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Malik, the learned Addl. Advocate General, for the State and Mr. Bashir, the learned Counsel for the accused-respondent.