MANSHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have been charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 109 RPC. After hearing the arguments and while preparing the judgment, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that Shri Janak Raj Kotwal on whose instance the case was registered, is required to be recalled because the same question with regard to the identification of the person who personated before him as Thoru Ram have not been asked to him. He accordingly by order dated 28 -04 -1999 directed recall of PW Shri Janak Raj Kotwal, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Sub -Registrar, R.S. Pura. The statement was made by the alleged accused to get the sale deed registered by presonating as Thoru Ram.

(2.) THE question involved is whether the Magistrate has the power to recall the witness after hearing the argument. It is settled law that the trial court does not conclude till the judgment is announced.

(3.) IT is also settled law that court has the power to recall a witness under section 16 of the Evidence Act. The power has however to be exercised judicisouly and not to the prejudice of either party. But power under section 540 Cr.P.C. is also very wide and not controlled by stage the trial has reached. Referring to the scope of this section, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jamatraj Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 178) held as follows: -