BRIJ LAL MEHTA Vs. KAMAL MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482. Cr.PC is directed against the order dated 22 -12 -1988 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City. It may be stated that 3 matters have been decided by this order but the accused petitioner is challenging that part of the order by which he has been directed to produce an ox in the court.

(2.) THE complainant non -petitioner filed a report at the Police Station that his ox had been stolen. After investigation a final report was given. The non -petitioner filed a complaint and on this complaint, the court has taken cognizance and at the same time it has ordered that the ox should be produced before the court. It may be stated here that the case of the accused -petitioner is that the ox in question was purchased by him from the complainant.

(3.) THE complainant moved an application before the Magistrate for getting the custody of the ox during the pendency of the trial. It is a case where the ox was not seized by the Police and had not been produced before the court hence it is contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that for the purposes of the deciding this application if was necessary that the ox should be produced before the court. Secondly, it is contended that if a Magistrate cannot give directions to the accused for the production of any document or any other thing then in a complaint case relevant document or thing cannot be produced before the court and further no order under Section 451 Cr.PC can be passed in respect of that thing. So meet such a situation, it is suggested that it should be held that the Magistrate can under Section 91, Cr.PC, issue orders to the accused to produce the document or thing