NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 24th June, 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, P.C. Act (E and N), Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Case No. 7 of 1997 by which the application filed by the accused, the petitioner herein for examination of one cited witness of the prosecution, namely Mr. T. L. Brahmin as Court witness was rejected, is the subject-matter under challenge in this revision-petition.

(2.) According to the present accused-petitioner, the prosecution without making any effort to bring evidence in the Court prayed for dropping the cited witness, namely Mr. T. L. Brahmin by casting most improper allegation of winning over of the said witness by the accused-petitioner. It is also the case of the accused-petitioner that on 2nd December, 2002, he made an application to call/summon the said Mr. T. L. Brahmin as witness for the ends of justice before examination of the Investigating Officer and the said petition was not heard and disposed of and over and above this, the accused-petitioner approached the Court below with another application for summoning and exCourt witness whose name stands as witness No. 68 in the charge-sheet before the examination of the Investigating Officer by contending, inter alia, that the said Mr. T. L. Brahmin shall depose the truth before the Court as he is material witness who prepared the plan of the building in question and apart from that the statement of the said witness recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C. shows that the said Shri T.L. Brahmin is an important witness which is expected to have the local knowledge about the building, but the learned Court below rejected the prayer of the accused-petitioner under the impugned order without any justification.

(3.) Supporting the case of the accusedpetitioner, Mr. J. C. Ghosh, learned counsel contended that the prosecution had withheld vital and important evidence which is in favour of the accused-petitioner by dropping the said Mr. T. L. Brahmin as prosecuion witness and if the said witness is examined and his statement is recorded, the said evidence will establish the innocence of the accused-petitioner from the charges levelled against him. Mr. J. C. Ghosh, learned counsel further contended at the bar that P.W. No. 33, namely K. A. Nankani deposed about the total evaluation as per his report with regard to the five-storied building situated at Church Road comes to Rs. 15,05,155/- and another witness P.W. No. 34, namely K. J. Singh deposed that for the first storied building the total amount of internal electrical installation is Rs. 46,995/- and for another building the total evaluation is Rs.1,930/- and whereas Mr. T. L. Brahmin, the said cited witness No. 68 has been dropped by the prosecution as prosecution witness who stated to the Investigating Officer about the tentative cost of construction of the building as Rs. 11,13,406.44. According to Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel, the learned Court below ought to have summoned and examined the said Mr. T. L. Brahmin as Court witness to secure ends of justice as well as for just decision of the case. It is also submitted by Mr, J. C. Ghosh, learned counsel at the bar that the present stage of the case is examination of Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case. Supporting his contention, Mr. Ghosh had relied upon the following decision of the respective High Courts and the Apex Court rendered in :