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