- (1.)This petition is by one of the accused in a criminal case to quash the order of the trial magistrate passed in exercise of powers under S.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). Petitioner characterised the prosecution as adopting filibuster.
(2.)Petitioner and her husband are now being arraigned before a judicial magistrate of first class for offences relating to cheating. The gist of the allegation is that the couple were mountebanks and swindled a jeweller by giving a bogus cheque towards price of gold ornaments valuing nearly a lakh of rupees. Police after investigation charge sheeted the case against them. The trial is reaching final stage and examination of investigating officers is the next step. It was then that the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application for recalling P.W.I for the purpose of proving photo copies of three bills. Learned magistrate allowed the application in spite of resistance from the accused. But after P.W.I was recalled and further examined, Assistant Public Prosecutor again filed another application to recall P.W.2 for further examination. Though it was strongly resisted, learned magistrate allowed the application as per the impugned order.
(3.)Assistant Public Prosecutor has stated in the application that photo copies of three bills containing the signature of P.W.2 were marked through P.W. 1, but since the defence has disputed the signatures in the bills it is "highly necessary to examine P.W. 1 again". Learned magistrate granted it as he felt that for the just decision of the case it is necessary to prove the signatures on the questioned bills. He pointed out that defence has ample opportunity to cross examine P.W.2 and also to adduce their evidence.
;