UMED SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the complainant and it arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) THE petitioner filed a complaint Under Sections 147, 323 and 424, IPC against 10 persons in the Court of the Magistrate at Jetaran. After recording the complainant's evidence. 5 of the accused were charged by the Court Under Sections 323 and 424, IPC and the rest were discharged. Thereafter, the prosecution witnesses were recalled for further cross-examination by the accused. One of such witnesses was Daljitsingh, sub-inspector of Police. He was cross-examined on 18-11954. After his examination, it was submitted by the witness that he had attended the Court on a previous date also viz. 1-8-1952 but he could not be examined on that date as the Magistrate was not present at the headquarters and, therefore, he requested that he should be paid his expenses for that date as well. The witness. requested the Court to verify the fact of his attendance from some Vakils. Accordingly, the Magistrate verified from three Vakils Shri Abhey-karan, Shri Bachhraj and Shri Badridan and being thus satisfied, lie ordered the complainant to pay the expenses of the witness for the previous date (1-8-1952) as well.

(3.) AGAINST the said order dated 18-1-1954, the complainant filed a revision application in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pali. It was urged by him that the attendance of the said witness was not recorded on the order-sheet of 1-8-1952, and that the Magistrate's finding about his attendance on that date was incorrect. It was further contended that even if the witness was entitled to receive expenses for 1-8-1952. they {should be borne by the Government because the witness had to go back on account of the absence of the Magistrate. Lastly, it was urged that in warrant cases, the expenses for recalling the witness, after a charge is framed, should be borne by the State. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the finding of the Magistrate regarding the attendance of the witness on 1-8-1952 was not incorrect. He also turned down the objection regarding the liability of the State to pay the expenses. The complainant has, therefore, come to this Court,