BALU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises a question whether the prosecution should be allowed 4o examine a certain witness at a certain stage of the trial. Two persons are being prosecuted Under Section 7, Essential Supplies ACt. The prosecution submitted a list of prosecution witnesses on 21st August 1919. Five witnesses named in the list were examined by the prosecution; and prosecution evidence was closed on 23rd September 1049. The accused were examined on 31st October 1949, and a charge was framed by the Court.

(2.) ON 21st October 1949, an application was made by the prosecution to the effeot that, it was proposed to examine one more witness Sri Kishen On 80th December 1949, the Court heard arguments for the parties as to whether the prosecution should be allowed to examine Sri Kiahtn as an additional witness. The Court decided that Sri Kisben should be examined before the Court, Against this order dated 30th December 1949, a revision application was made by the accused persons to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition subject to the observation that the trial Court should examine the witness Under Section 640, Criminal P C, The accused persons have filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 28th January 1950.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate in his order dated 30th December 1949 made no reference to Section 640, Criminal P. C. Nevertheless the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 28th January I960 observed thus : "the learned Magistrate would therefore, treat his order as one Under Section 510, of the Code. " The learned Sessions Judge had no power to give such a direction to a Magistrate in a pending case. If the learned Sessions Judge thought that such a direction should be given to the trial Court, the learned Judge should have made a reference on the point to this Court. This part of the learned Sessions Judge's order dated 18th January i960 is set aside.