The main legal point established in the judgment is that an accused cannot examine a co-accused as a defense witness without a written request from the co-accused, as mandated by section 315(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore rejecting the plea of the petitioner who is the first accused in C.C.No.200 of 2004 to examine five co-accused as witnesses on his side. Of course, the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore was pleased to permit the petitioner to examine the sole independent witness cited in the list of witnesses placed before the court.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in a case launched against him for offences under sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. After questioning the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore offered an opportunity to the accused to lead evidence on their side. At that stage, the first accused, who is the petitioner herein, filed a list of witnesses to be examined as defence witnesses. The learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to reject the plea of the accused to examine the witnesses shown in the list produced.

3. A revision in Crl.R.P.No.160 of 2000 was preferred by the first accused before the Court of Sessions. The said Criminal Revision Petition was taken on file by the District Judge, Fast Track Court III, Coimbatore who dismissed the said revision petition on 19.12.2005. The first accused invoked the provision of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing Crl.O.P.No.5412 of 2006 before this court. This court was pleased to dismiss the said petition as withdrawn giving liberty to the learned counsel for petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed Crl.O.P.No.7853 of 2007 under sections 254 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission for the petitioner to examine as many as six witnesses on his side as defence witnesses.

5. By the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore directed the petitioner to examine the only independent witness cited by the petitioner as defence witness. But, the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to reject the plea of the petitioner to examine the other five accused viz., A3 to A7 in this case on his side as defence witnesses.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the plea of the petitioner to examine the co-accused on the main ground that request in writing should have emanated from the accused concerned for subjecting himself as one of the defence witnesses. As no such written request emanated from any of those accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to examine the co-accused as defence witnesses. So saying, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the plea of the petitioner to examine A3 to A7 on his side.

7. The only point that arises for consideration is whether an accused in a case can examine a co-accused without a request in writing emanated from him and whether the court which took cognizance of the list of witnesses submitted by an accused can ascertain from the co-accused as to whether he is prepared to give evidence as a witness on the side of the co-accused.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, would submit that the embargo found in Article 20(3) would apply only in a case where an accused was compelled to be a witness against himself. Here is a case where an accused has desired to examine the co-accused as defence witnesses. Therefore, the bar under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not apply to the plea of the petitioner to examine the co-accused as defence witnesses to disprove the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would contend that the scope of section 315(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have to be expanded to accommodate the plea of an accused to examine a co-accused as de