The word 'hear' in Section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not mean the recording of the statement of the complainant but only means the summary examination of the complainant or granting an audience to him.

This is a revision application against an order passed by the First Addl. Munsiff J. M. Srinagar dated 28-1-72 by which he accepted the prayer of the accused-respondent for directing the complainant to be examined as a witness before production of the evidence in the case. This order was upheld in revision by the C.J.M. Srinagar who refused to make a reference to this court. The petition arises in the following circumstances.

2. The petitioner-complainant instituted a complaint under S. 500 Ranbir P. C. against the accused before the First Addl. Munsiff J. M. Srinagar, on 17-1-72. The Magistrate took cognizance of the case and summoned the accused. On 28-1-72 the complainant produced one witness, namely Ali Mohd. in support of his case but the accused took the objection that before taking any further evidence, the court must record the statement of the complainant himself. This objection seems to have found favour with the magistrate who directed the complainant to be produced in court by his order dated 28-1-72 for recording his statement. The learned Magistrate was of the view that under the provisions of S. 252(1) of the Criminal P.C. it was incumbent on the court to hear the complainant, which obviously meant that the statement of the complainant had to be recorded, and it was ordered that the complainant should be produced before the court on the next date of hearing. Against this order the petitioner went up in revision before the CJM who agreeing with the learned Magistrate, refused to make a reference to this court for quashing the order of the magistrate. Hence this revision petition.

3. The revision petition was heard in the first instance by a single judge of this court, D. D. Thakur J. who found that the point involved was not free from difficulty and he also doubted the decision of this court in Afzal Beg V. State, AIR 1959 J&K 77 and accordingly made a reference to a larger Bench. That is how the matter has come up before the Full Bench.

4. Two points have been argued before us. In the first place it was argued by the petitioner that the word ˜hear™ appearing in S. 252(1) does not necessarily mean the recording of the statement of the complainant but merely means the summary examination of the complainant or granting an audience to him. Mr. T. Hussain appearing for the respondent first submitted that the word ˜hear™ included the examination of the complainant also. Secondly it was contended by Mr. Hussain that the court had the undoubted power to regulate the order in which witnesses were to be examined and this power was saved by S. 252 and if the court exercised its discretion in compelling the complainant to be examined, there was no error of discretion. We shall take up the first contention now.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited some authorities to show how the word ˜hear™ has been interpreted by various courts in India. A perusal of the scheme of the Criminal P.C. would show that the word ˜hear™ has been used on various occasions in different contexts. It is therefore impossible for us to lay down a rule of universal application as to what is the meaning of the word ˜hear™ but it may be possible to deduce a fairly clear concept of the connotation of the word ˜hear™ as appearing in S. 252 of the Criminal P.C. with which we are concerned here. S. 252(1) of the Criminal P.C. runs thus:-

"In any case instituted otherwise than on a police report, when the accused appears or is brought before a magistrate, such magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution."

It will be seen that in S. 200 of the Criminal P.C. which precedes this section and which relates to taking cognizance of a case by a Magistrate the clear words used are :-

"A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath and the substance of the examination shall