The court has the duty to question witnesses to ascertain the truth and to ensure that statements made in examination-in-chief are in conformity with Section 60 of the Evidence Act.

1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for non-petitioner No. 3 and perused the orders passed by the courts below.

2. The facts of the case maybe briefly stated as below :

Magna Ram non-petitioner No. 1 is the father of the petitioner Ram Niwas and Anna Ram non-petitioner No. 2 is the brother of the petitioner (Ram Niwas). Magna Ram filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Civil judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deedwana, for grant of maintenance allowance to him on the ground that he had no means of subsistence and his son Ram Niwas was financially in, a position to provide him maintenance allowance. Anna Ram is the second son of Magna Ram and he was also impleaded as a party but he did not file any written statement in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Only two witnesses Magna Ram (PW 1) and Narpat Singh (PW 2) were examined in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ram Niwas (petitioner) and Anna Ram (non-petitioner No. 2) against whom the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. had been filed did not produce any evidence during trial.

3. After considering the statements of Magna Ram (PW 1) and Narpat Singh (PW 2) the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that Magna Ram (non-petitioner No. 1) was 81 years old and that the possession of his property including fields and houses had been taken over by his son Ram Niwas (petitioner) and, therefore, Magna Ram had no means of subsistence. Consequently, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted maintenance allowance to Magna Ram at the rate of Rs. 500 /- per month and this maintenance allowance was made payable by Ram Niwas (petitioner). The petitioner (Ram Niwas) preferred a criminal appeal No. 13/93 Ram Niwas v. Magna Ram & Ors. and the same was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur vide order dated 11.12.1993. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal with cost and declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana and by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur the petitioner has approached this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the lower Courts have committed a grave mistake in reading and appreciating the statements of Magna Ram (PW 1) who has admitted in cross-examination that he has 42 bighas of land which he has not given to anyone and that 18 bighas of his land is being cultivated by Ram Niwas since 1989 and Ram Niwas gives to him a share of crop produced from 18 bighas of land and it has also been admitted by Magna Ram in cross-examination that crop worth Rs. 10,000/- per annum is produced in his 42 bighas of land. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge have given importance to the statement made in the examination-in-chief in which Magna Ram (PW 1) had stated that Ram Niwas had taken over the possession of his entire property and turned him out of the house, and that he does not allow him to enter into his property and that he has no means of subsistence. In other words both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the statement made in the examination-in-chief by Magna Ram.(PW 1) is correct and that it hds not been shaken by the answers given in the cross-examination.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the reasons given by the Courts below for placing reliance on the statements made by Magna Ram in examination-in-chief. The certified copies of the statements of Magna Ram (PW 1) and Narpat Singh (PW 2) have been filed by the petitioner and I have perused them. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants this