The court emphasized the importance of not allowing the examination of witnesses intended only to delay the proceedings and highlighted the grounds for refusing to summon a witness as per Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The petitioners, who are facing trial in C.B.I. Case No. RC-1(S)-1/2000/SIC-IV/ND dated 11.1.2000 under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307, 323,326, 342, 363, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of the Anti Hijacking Act, 1982 and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, have filed this criminal revision, which is barred by limitation, for setting aside the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Designated Court, Patiala, whereby the application filed by the accused for summoning the defence witnesses, was partly accepted.

2. In this case, after completion of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioners filed an application for summoning the following persons in their defence witnesses:

(i) Dr. Farooq Abdulah Former Chief Minister, Jammu & Kashmir

(ii) Mr. Madan Lal Khurana, Former Chief Minister, Delhi.

(iii) Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi.

(iv) Inspector General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir.

(v) Commissioner of Police, Delhi

(vii) Chief Aerodroms Authority, Kandhar, Aerodrome, Afghanistan

through Embassy of Afghanistan, New Delhi.

3. The trial court after coming to the conclusion has declined to summon the aforesaid defence witnesses, while observing as under:

From the list of DWs, I find that the names of these witnesses are given only to delay the present case with an ulterior motive. Otherwise, there is no need to summon these witnesses. The pilot of the Aircraft and Investigator have already been cross-examined at length along with other witnesses examined by the prosecution. There is nothing in the application how these witnesses will prove the innocence of the accused or falsifies the case of the prosecution. These witnesses have no concern with the defence version. Therefore, the witnesses cannot be summoned as the application regarding summoning of these witnesses is made for the purpose of delay and for defeating the ends of justice and vexations in nature.

4. The Designated Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, ordered to summon only the Superintendent/concerned official of Tihar Jail, Delhi and Superintendent/concerned official of Central Jail, Arther Road, Mumbai. Against the said order, the petitioners have filed this criminal revision.

5. Counsel for the petitioners contends that it is settled proposition of law that the court should be liberal to allow the accused to lead defence and to summon the witnesses as per list provided by the accused. He further contends that the accused must be given full opportunity to defend himself by citing as many number of witnesses which according to him are necessary to prove his defence. The curtailment of the right of the accused to examine the witnesses in defence will amount to not providing him fair opportunity to defend the accusation. Counsel contends that due to partly rejection of the application of the petitioners to summon the above named witnesses, a great prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners may be allowed to summon those witnesses in the interest of justice.

6. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and going through the contents of the petition as well as the impugned order, 1 do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the inherent powers of this court in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

7. Section 243(2) of the Code clearly provides that the court has the powers to refuse to summon any person as a witness on any of the three different grounds: (a) if any witness is cited for the purpose of vexation; (b) if any witness is cited for causing delay; and (c) if any witness is cited for defeating the ends of justice. The purpose of furnishing a list of witnesses and documents to the Court before the accused is called upon to enter on his defence is to afford an occasion to the court to peruse the list. On such perusal, if the court f