The complainant has the right to choose which witnesses to examine, and the non-examination of witnesses given up by the complainant does not violate Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed seeking the quashing of all the proceedings in p. R. C. No. 11 of 1976 on the file of the judicial Second Class Magistrate, raichoti.

( 2 ) ONE by name Kanakanti Mal Reddy laid a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinnamandam, alleging that on 2nd January, 1976, the petitioners caused injuries to L. Ws. and took away two bags of groundnut and 4 half-bags of paddy. The concerned Sub-Inspector of Police after investigating opined that there was no cognizable case by the police. Not being satisfied with that, sri Kanakanti Mal Reddy laid a private complaint in the Court of the Judicial second Class Magistrate, Raichoti, against the petitioners on 12th February, 1976 under sections 147, 148, 448, 395 and 324 read with section 149 of the indian Penal Code. As many as 10 witnesses were cited in the complaint filed by Mal Reddy. The sworn statement of the complainant on oath was recorded on 23rd February, 1976 and L. Ws. 1 to 6 and 10 were examined by the Judicial 2nd Class Magistrate under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on various dates. Ultimately on 12th may, 1976 the case was taken on file as p. R. C. No. 11 of 1976 under sections 147, 148, 448, 395 and 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, and non-bailable warrants were issued by the magistrate.

( 3 ) SRI Harisesha Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the case after examining L. Ws. 1 to 6 and 10 and without examining the other L. Ws. 7 to 9 is contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 202 of the Criminal Procedure code, and as such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) SRI M. N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant, contended that out of the 10 witnesses cited in the complaint, L. Ws. 1 to 6 and 10 were examined and L. Ws. 7 to 9 were given up by the complainant on 28th of April, 1976 as L. Ws. 7 and 8 came to the scene of offence after the occurrence and as they were won over by the accused. L. W. 9, according to the learned Counsel, a Sub-Inspector was cited to speak about the seizures only as he was not the investigating officer. He also denied the seizure of bloodstained clothes, etc. , and as such he was also given up. Sri Malla Reddy according to the learned Counsel being a complainant has got the option to examine the witnessess of his own choice and he is at liberty to give up whomsoever he chooses and as L. Ws. 7 to 9 were given up, it cannot be said that the proviso to subsection (2) of section 202 is not complied with and therefore the proceedings are not liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) THE point therefore that arises for determination is whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed on account of the non-examination of some of the witnesses given up by the complainant under the proviso appended to sub-section (2) of section 202, Criminal Procedure Code.

( 6 ) SRI Harisesha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, emphatically contended that the examination of the witnesses is conceived in the interest of the accused as the accused is entitled for being furnished with the statements recorded under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code,of all the persons examined by the Magistrate by virtue of which, the accused would effectively, exercise his right of defence by cross examining the witnesses and therefore if some of the witnesses were not examined, it constitutes non-compliance with section 202, sub-section (2) proviso.

( 7 ) SRI Obulapathi Chowdary, the learned Public Prosecutor after having drawn my attention to the relevant provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure code and particularly those in section 202 emphasized the fact that the requirement of examining all the witnesses under section 202, sub-section (2) proviso does not bring within its ambit witnesses given up by the complainant and the intention of the framers of the enactment would not have been to place

Click Here to Read the rest of this document