Judgement Key Points

G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order of the V Addl. Munsif magistrate, Guntur in Crl. M. P. No. 1509/91 in C. C. No. 157/85 dt. 9-10-91. The petitioner immediately after the examination under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. filed a petition under Sec. 243 Cr. P. C. to summon 24 witnesses listed in the petition for adducing their evidence on behalf of the accused. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that it is only with vaxatious reasons to procrastinating the matter for some more time which should not be allowed as per Section 243 (2) cr. P. C. Another reason in dismissing the application by the learned Magistrate is that the defence has not expressed their ready and willingness to deposit the amount for summoning the witnesses that were sought to be examined on behalf of the accused.

( 2 ) IT is well settled that the accused must be given due opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf and to produce documents, if any, and the delay in examining the witnesses or inconvenience said to be caused to the witnesses are not matters that were to be taken into consideration, when the accused desires to examine the witnesses. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has completed the trial of the case including the examination of the accused under sec. 313 Cr. P. C. Thereafter, the accused filed a petition u/s. 243 Cr. P. C. to summon 24 witnesses listed therein. In such a case, the learned Magistrate is the competent person to verify whether the 24 listed witnesses submitted by the accused, can be summoned as witnesses on behalf of the accused as well as the purpose for which they were sought to be examined or summoned. The learned magistrate is also empowered to refuse such an application if it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.

( 3 ) ON a careful perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the accused has not furnished the full details of each of the witnesses with their present address and the purpose for which they were sought to be summoned. As contemplated under Sec. 243 (3) Cr. P. C. the accused failed to deposit the reasonable expenses incurred by the witnesses, immediately.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in jumo Lal Bakhsh vs. Emperor. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that the accused failed to mention the purpose for which the witnesses were sought to be summoned as well as the insufficient descriptions and addresses of the witnesses. The reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is perfectly correct and justified. The learned counsel also relied upon the decisions reported in thomas Shorunke vs. The King (Lor Porter), Jit Singh vs. State and Ronald vs. State of West Bengal. In this case, the accused failed to furnish the correct addresses of the witnesses where they are working, the purpose for which they were sought to be examined and to deposit the reasonable expenses to be incurred by the witnesses. When the accused failed to furnish the above information, it cannot be said that the court has onerous duty of finding out the current addresses of the witnesses and issue process to them. It is clarified that when the accused has not mentioned the purpose for which he wants to examine the witnesses it is not the duty of the court to ascertain the purpose for which the witnesses were sought to be summoned or examined. It is clear from the material, that it is an old case and the offence took place in the year 1982. Viewed fromany angle, the petition filed by the petitioner does not merit for consideration and the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the same.

( 5 ) IN so far as the second contention with regard to depositing of the reasonable expenses, it is clear that the accused failed to deposit the reasonable expenses, immediately and even not expressed willingness to deposit the amount. It is for the learned Magistrate, before summoning any witness on an appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document