SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(P&H) 193

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.Falshaw and Harbans Singh JJ.
S.Jodh Singh
Versus
Mahant Bhagambar Dass
Criminal Revision No. 1370 of 1959,
Decided On : OCTOBER 11, 1960

Sub-section (9) of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not confer any right upon a party to examine a person as its witness.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 145(4), (9) - INTERPRETATION - RIGHT TO SUMMON WITNESSES - SUB-SECTION (9) DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHT UPON A PARTY TO EXAMINE A PERSON AS ITS WITNESS - ORAL EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS MUST BE CONFINED WITHIN THE LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (4).

Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between two rival parties over a chabutra in Ludhiana attached to a religious institution. The Magistrate, acting under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, issued a notice to both parties to put in written statements and documents in support of their respective claims to possession. The first party filed affidavits of seven persons, while the second party (petitioners) filed affidavits of twenty-six persons. The Magistrate summoned some witnesses for a later date, but the first party applied to file affidavits of additional witnesses, claiming that they could not file them earlier due to their counsel's absence. The Magistrate refused to allow the additional affidavits, but remarked that the party could apply to summon any witness under Section 145(9). The first party filed a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The first party then applied to summon 51 witnesses, of which the Magistrate allowed 10. The second party filed a revision petition against this order.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Sub-section (9) of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not confer any right upon a party to examine a person as its witness. The right to produce documents and adduce evidence by affidavits is given only under Sub-sections (1) and (4), and the oral examination of a witness must be confined within the limits imposed by the first proviso to Sub-section (4).

Issues: Whether Sub-section (9) of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code confers a right upon a party to examine a person as its witness.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (4), and (9) of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and concluded that the amendments made to Sub-sections (1) and (4) by the amending Act XXVI of 1935 changed the procedure for adducing evidence in proceedings under Section 145. Under the amended provisions, parties are required to put in written statements, documents, and affidavits in support of their claims, and the Magistrate is required to decide the question of possession based on these documents and affidavits. The power of the Magistrate to examine further evidence is confined to the examination of only such of the persons whose affidavits have been put in. Sub-section (9), which was not touched by the amendments, provides a procedure for summoning witnesses at the instance of either party, but this provision does not create any right to examine a witness. The court also noted that the continued existence of Sub-section (9) in its present form is not very apt and requires looking into by the Legislature.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 7th July 1959, and directed the trial court to proceed further in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the judgment.

Judgment

Harbans Singh, J.

1. This revision petition raises a question of the interpretation of Sub-sections (4) and (9) of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in view of the importance of the question the matter was referred to a larger Bench when the petition came up before me sitting in Single Bench.

2. The facts giving rise to the dispute may briefly be stated as under: With regard to a chabutra in Ludbiana attached to a religious institution there was a dispute between two rival parties and on the report of the police the chabutra was attached and notice was issued to both the parties to put in written statements and documents in support of their respective claims to the possession of the same. When the parties, after service, appeared before the Court on 2lst August 1958, the case was adjourned till 12th September, 1958, to enable the parties to produce affidavits of such witnesses as they may deem fit.

On the latter date, affidavits of seven person were put in on behalf of the first party and affidavits of twenty six persons on behalf of the second party (petitioners in the present petition). The Court summoned some witnesses for 1st October, 1958. On that date an application was put in on behalf of the first party (the respondents in the present petition) asking for permission to file affidavits of a number of other persons on the plea that they could not file those affidavits earlier because their counsel Mr. B.S. Thapar had gone to Kashmir.

Objections having been taken, to the entertainment of affidavits at that late stage, the case was adjourned on a number of hearings for arguments when ultimately on 9th December 1958, the learned trial Magistrate held that further affidavits could not be allowed at that stage under the provisions of law. He, however, further remarked that the party concerned could apply to the Court to summon any witness under Section 145 (9), Criminal Procedure Code, at any stage when necessary orders will be passed.

Against this order the first party went up in revision to the Sessions Court. The point urged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision, was that in case affidavits of additional witnesses sought to be put in by them were not allowed to be taken on the record they would not, under the law, be able to examine those persons as their witnesses and in support of this contention they placed reliance on Keshab Acharya V/s. Somenath Behera, AIR 1958 Orissa 79.

However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge felt that no good reasons had been assigned for the non-production of thc affidavits at the proper stage and! that the trial Court was justified in refusing to receive the same when offered at a late stage and consequently dismissed the revision petition. No further revision was filed against this order in this Court. Later on behalf of the first party an application was made that 51 witnesses mentioned in the list attached to the application may be summoned as witnesses on their behalf. The learned trial Magistrate on 7-7-59 ordered that 10 out of them, mentioned in the order, may be summoned. The present revision has been filed by the second party against the aforesaid order.

3. The sole point requiring decision is whether in view of the amended provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, any party to the proceedings has a right to have a witness summoned with a view to examine him even if no affidavit of such a person has been filed? For the proper decision of the point in controversy, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (4) and (9) of Section 145.

Out of them Sub-section (1), as it originally stood prior to the amendment incorporated by the amending Act, XXVI of 1935, provides that a Magistrate, if satisfied that the dispute was likely to cause a breach of peace, may issue a notice to the parties concerned to attend his Court at a time to be fixed and "to put in written statements of their resp





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top