This revision has been preferred against the order dated 9.1.92 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in S.T. No. 92 of 1982.

The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution has closed its evidence in the month of December, 1991. The petitioners submitted an application 21.11.91 requesting to summon some document and also six witnesses. The trial Court directed that the witnesses and the documents be summoned on payment of p. f. and expensed besides diet money. The petitioners requested the trial Court to issue summons without payment of p.f. and diet money but the learned trial Court rejected the application and directed that the petitioners should pay p.f. and expenses besides diet money.

The learned State counsel insists that all the expensed are to be borne by the petitioners and he has relief on the amendment" introduced by Rule 558 which reads as below :-558. -- The Criminal Courts are authorised to pay expenses ;-(a) of complaints and witnesses, whether for the prosecution or the defence -(i) in cases prosecuted, instituted or carried on by, or under the orders of, or with the sanction of Government or any Judge, Magistrate or other public officer acting as such, (ii) in cases in which the presiding officers consider such payments to be directly in furtherance of the public interest; and (iii) in all non-bailable cases;

(b) of witnesses summoned or recalled by the presiding officer of his own motion under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

Provided that no payment shall be made to any witness on the part of Government where the expenses for the attendance of such witness have been deposited in Court under sections 216, 255 or 257 of the Code."

The present case was also a non-bailable case. The Court did exercise its mind and allowed the application for summoning the witnesses. In this background it is not open to the State to say that the expenses are to be borne by the complainant. The entire approach of criminal cases is for the ultimate justice to be done. There may be cases in which it may be beyond the capacity of the accused to bear the expenses of its witnesses. In 1968 JLJ 530 (Kadu v. Banmalt) it was held by the High Court of M.P. that :-

"In a non-bailable case even if the cognizance is taken on a complaint the Government to pay expenses of the complaint and witnesses whether for the prosecution or the defence." This is not a case wherein the Court has refused to summon the witnesses because it was not bonafide and only intended to delay the trial of the case. The Court did exercise its mind and thought it fit to summon the witnesses. If that stage was over then the necessary corollary was that entire expenses were to be borne by the State itself.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly finally. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for further proceeding. 1968 JLJ 530 relied on.