IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of the court to ensure fair trials and the quest for truth in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Smt. Vallabhaneni Sireesha, learned counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent.

2. This criminal petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "CrPC") to quash the Order, dtd. 20/2/2020 rendered by XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama in Crl.M.P.No.3828 of 2019 in C.C.No.694 of 2018.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order is not maintainable in law as the learned Magistrate did not consider the fact that the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacunae in their case during the trial by introducing new witnesses.

4. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the proposed witnesses are not new witnesses and they were examined by the police during investigation of the case and their statements were also recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC., but due to inadvertently, their names were not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed with the Police Report (charge sheet) and therefore, only to assist the Court to arrive at a just decision, the prosecution intends to examine them and copies of the statements recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC., of the said witnesses were also been provided to the accused, and the accused has a right of cross-examination and therefore, it would not cause any prejudice to the accused.

5. Now the point that arises for determination is:

"Whether the impugned Order, dtd. 20/2/2020 passed by the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama in Crl.M.P.No.3828 of 2019 in C.C.No.694 of 2018 suffers from any error, illegality, impropriety and irregularity requiring this Court to quash the same?"

6. POINT: The some and substance of the case is that the respondent/police filed the Police Report (Charge Sheet) against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity "IPC"); the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and registered the case as Calendar Case No.694 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandigama; and after conclusion of examination of the accused under Sec. 251 CrPC., posted the case for trial; during trial, the prosecution has examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and case is coming for further evidence of the prosecution; the prosecution filed the application in Crl.M.P.No.3828 of 2019 under Sec. 311 CrPC., to issue summons to additional witnesses by name Allagunta Nagaraju and Bandi Nagaraju; learned Magistrate allowed the application under the impugned Order, dtd. 20/2/2020 and issued summons to the witnesses for examination as witnesses for the prosecution.

7. The contention of the prosecution is that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of the case has had examined the above two witnesses under Sec. 161 CrPC., and also recorded their statements but, inadvertently failed to mention their names in the list of witnesses filed with the Police Report (Charge Sheet) and that they are eye-witnesses to the occurrence of the incident and therefore, their evidence would assist the Court to arrive at a just and proper conclusion.

8. The petitioner/accused opposed the application before the Trial Court that the prosecution is trying to fill up the lacunae in their case, and therefore, it would cause prejudice to the accused.

9. In the light of above rival contentions Chapter XX, Sec. 254 CrPC which deals with the procedure when accused is not convicted either under Sec. 252 CrPC or 253 CrPC in a summons case triable by Magistrates is relevant. It is extracted as under: Sec. 254: Procedure when not convicted.

(1) If the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Sec. 252 or Sec. 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to he