The right to adduce evidence in support of the prosecution is not absolute and should primarily rest with the Prosecutor, with the court having the discretion to admit or refuse fresh evidence. The judgment highlighted the duty of the court to oversee the functioning of the criminal judicial system and guard against possible abuse of such right, and the need to exercise the power under Section 311 sparingly.

A novel question, arising in peculiar circumstances, arises for determination in this revision.

2. Sri R. Mohan Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station, filed a complaint before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, alleging that the accused Sri. K. G. Nair committed an offence under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act on 8-11-1980 when he, in a drunken state behaved in a disorderly manner in a public place. The Magistrate took the case on file on 13-11-1980 and issued summons to the accused and posted the case to 29-11-1980. The accused appeared on the 28th itself, pleaded not guilty ad was enlarged on bail. He was also exempted from personal appearance. The case was posted to 31-12-1980.

3. On 29-11-1980, the petitioner herein and another filed an application purporting to be under Sections 257 and 259 of the Code, alleging that they were present to witness the disorderly behaviour of the accused in the public road near the Mathrubhumi, that there are records in the police control room to show that the accused assaulted the watchman at the gate of the Mathrubhumi, they were themselves assaulted and that they apprehend that the police in collusion with the accused is not likely to prosecute the case, that there was every likelihood of the case being withdrawn,, and that they are prepared to give evidence in support of the prosecution. The Court ordered notice to the Assistant Public Prosecutor and posted the same to 31-12-1980 when the case was also posted for evidence.

4. On 31-12-1980, no witnesses were present. Summons was issued and the case posted to 27-1-1981.

5. On 27-1-1981, there was no witness present again and summons was again issued and the case posted to 28-2-1981.

6. On 28-2-1981, also, there was no witness. The case was posted to 23-3-1981.

7. On 23-3-1981, C.W. 2 was present. Summons to C.W. 1 and C.W. 3 was repeated and the case posted to 29-4-1981.

8. On 29-4-1981, the complainant was absent. There was no representation. The accused was acquitted under Section 256(1), Cr.P.C.

9. The petitioner, who is not a complainant, who is not an accused in this case, who merely stated that he was prepared to adduce evidence in support of the prosecution, challenges the acquittal and prays that he be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the prosecution. He contends that there has been a manifest miscarriage of justice and this Court should, in revision, or at least under its inherent jurisdiction set aside the acquittal and order retrial. When the revision was admitted, notice was also ordered to the Advocate General considering the importance of the questions raised. In response to this notice Sri Chettur Sankaran Nair, State Prosecutor, appeared for the State.

10. Shri K. Rama Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, contended.

(1) that the acquittal under Section 256(1) was illegal and improper as the conditions imposed thereunder were not satisfied;

(2) that under Section 254, the petitioners are entitled to adduce evidence in support of the prosecution, this right has been denied and therefore the acquittal cannot stand;

(3) that the Court has mechanically passed an order acquitting the accused on the sole ground that the complainant was absent when the witnesses were ready for giving evidence. The Court below did not even pass any orders on their application.

11. Sri. Vijayakumar, the young counsel appearing for the accused, has forcefully placed the following submissions on the forefront

(a) that there was jurisdiction to acquit the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code in this case;

(b) that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition; and

(c) that the petitioner has no right to lead evidence on behalf of the prosecution.

12. The counsel on both sides have referred to some decisions also and Sri Chettur Sankaran Nair, agreeing with the counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner is not aggrieved, this Court cann