BIJAI RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. This is an application, in revision on behalf of the accused applicants from the order of the trial Court allowing the prosecution to file a supplementary Hat of witnesses. Section 253 (2), Criminal P. C. is quite dear in the matter and lays down that "the Magistrate shall ascertain, from the complainant or otherwise, the names of any persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution, and shall summon to give evidence before himself such of them as lie thinks necessary. "

(2.) HANSRAJ v. Emperor A. I. R. (27) 1940 Nag 390 : 42 Cr. L. J. 208, also lays down that 'the power given to the Magistrate Under Section 262 (2) may be exercised from time to time as the occasion requires1. No doubt, Sitab Singh v. Dulganjan Singh (1913) 14 Cr. L. J. 682 : A. I. R. (1) 1914 ALL. 526 and Qovinda Sahai v. Emperor A. I. R. (1) 1914 ALL. 430 (2) : 15 Cr. L. J. 363 as cited on behalf of the accused applicants, lay down that a Court is not bound to accept list of witnesses produced from time to time, and that it should see which of the persona desired to be summoned are necesary witnesses. This is exactly what Section 252 (2), Criminal P. C. lays down and what the trial Court has done. It is not for the Court at this stage to interfere, with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in the matter.