RAVI BHUSHAN DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition was filed by the prosecution under Section 311, Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa for the purpose of examining the two witnesses, namely, the informant and his wife, who allegedly suffered injuries in the case. The trial Magistrate dismissed the petition and aggrieved by the said order the State preferred a revision and the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Garhwa allowed the revision holding that the learned Magistrate passed the order in haste. Accordingly, permission was granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge to the prosecution to examine two witnesses and aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the present revision is filed by the accused, Ravi Bhushan Dubey and Pankaj Dubey in the case.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the prosecution having failed to produce two witnesses in spite of several opportunities given to it was not justified in filing a petition under Section 311, Cr. P.C. to examine those two witnesses after the prosecution case was closed and, therefore, the Sessions Judge was not right in allowing the petition filed to summon two witnesses for their examination.

(3.) I have heard Sri I. N. Gupta, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and perused the materials placed before me.