( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is for quashing the order dated 2. 6. 1999 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, declining to summon two more witnesses at the stage of pre-charge evidence in a complaint case filed by the petitioner against the respondents. A revision filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 18. 9. 1999.

( 2 ) THE question raised before this Court is as to whether a complainant has a right to produce any additional witness at pre-charge evidence stage when the name of such a witness is neither mentioned in the complaint nor in the list of witnesses filed under Section 204 (2), Criminal Procedure Code

( 3 ) THE facts relevant for disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 147/323/379/447/426/506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code against the respondents. Two witnesses cited by the petitioner, namely Ram Singh and Chandgi Ram died before their examination in the Court and, as such, the petitioner moved an application under Sections 311 /244, Criminal Procedure Code for summoning Bhagwan Singh and Ved Parkash who, according to him, were witnesses to the occurrence. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed his application mainly on the ground that the names of these two witnesses were not mentioned in the complaint and, as such, their examination would cause serious prejudice to the accused persons. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that there was no rule of evidence that conviction could not be based on the testimony of single witness, i. e. the complainant only.

( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsels for the parties.

( 5 ) SECTION 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides a complete answer to the controversy raised in this petition reads as under :

"244. Evidence for prosecution- (1) When, in any warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. (2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. "

( 6 ) THE Section thus makes clear that after appearance of an accused in a complaint case, the complainant has the liberty to produce the evidence, which goes in support of the complainant. The legal proposition is well settled that the list of witnesses filed in a complaint case under Section 204 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code can be added to and the Court can be requested to summon and examine additional witnesses at the stage of pre-charge evidence. It is thus obligatory for the Court to take into consideration all such evidence that may be produced by the complainant in support of his case. The view taken by learned Metropolitan Magistrate that the names of the two additional witnesses proposed to be examined, were not men- tioned in the complaint, could not be the basis for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for the reason that there is no requirement that the names of the witnesses should be mentioned in the complaint. Their names have to be mentioned in the list attached to the complaint and if a complainant so desires, he can produce and examine witnesses other than those even mentioned in the list subject, of course, to the safeguard that a witness should not be produced suddenly springing a surprise on the accused. Due notice must be given to the accused that a particular witness is sought to be produced and examined by the complainant.

( 7 ) THE Courts are, therefore, under a legal obligation to examine the witnesses sought to be produced by the complainant at pre-charge stage and, as such, both the Courts below failed to exercise their judicial discretion properly by holding that the petiti