MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. KESAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, an important point has arisen as to whether on commitment of a case on complaint, the Sessions Judge has powers to examine those witnesses who were not examined in the committing Court before the issue of process ?

(2.) THE petitioner filed a report in PS. Tibi about the incident of an attempt to murder, but the S. H. O. of the police station concerned did not file a report u/s 173, Cr. P. C. and as such the petitioner moved a complaint on November 30, 1970 in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Hanumangarh. THE learned Magistrate, after holding a preliminary enquiry, took cognizence of the offence u/s 307/149 IPC against the eight accused persons. It appears that two of the accused Bakhsis and Bihan Singh have died. THE committal enquiry under Chapter XVIII, Cr. P. C. (1898) was pending when the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came in to force with effect from 14. 74. In view of the proviso to sub section (2)of S. 484, Cr. P. C. 1973, the committal enquiry was dealt with by the learned Magistrate under S. 208, Cr. P. C. , 197 3, and the case was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanuman-garh. During the course of trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, the petitioner sought to examine three witnesses viz. , Kripal-singh, Sundersingh and the doctor. An objection was taken on behalf of the accused persons that because these persons were not examined as witnesses on behalf of the complainant before the issue of process, cannot be examined by the Additional Sessions Judge. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge under the imdugned order upheld the objection so far as the two witnesses Kripal Singh and Sunder Singh are concerned, but the application of the petitioner for examining the doctor was accepted.