RENGASWAMI NAICKER Vs. MURUGA NAICKEN
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Notice to Public Prosecutor.
(2.) These are two criminal revision petitions, which have been filed against the orders made by the learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate. Kulitalai that he should examine an officer as a court witness in C. C. Nos. 839 and 840 of 1950.
(3.) I am unable to see any objection to the course adopted by the learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate. Under S. 540, Cri P. C. a Court has unrestricted powers of summoning a witness. The only restriction is that this power should not be exercised as has been pointed out by Somasundaram J. in - 'In re K. V. R. S. Mani', to save the parties from trouble and expense. Subject to this, it is not only the prerogative but also the plain duty of a Court to examine such as those witnesses as it considers absolutely necessary for doing justice between the State and the subject. It would not be an improper exercise of the powers of the Court under S. 540, Cri. P. C. merely because the evidence taken supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused - 'Narayana Nambiar v. Emperor', AIR 1942 Mad 223 (B). A just decision under S. 540, Cri. P. C. does not mean a decision in favour of the defence.- 'Kesave Piltai v. Emperor', AIR 1929 Mad 837 (C).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.