Decided on June 17,1954



- (1.) THE interesting questions raised in this revision petition are whether the refusal by the prosecution to ask questions in examination-in-chief without allegations of error disentitles the accused from cross-examining the witness, and whether the Magistrate is justified in postponing such cross-examination till after the charge has been framed.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that Satyanarayan Singh has been charge-sheeted of kidnapping Under Section 363, Penal Code a minor girl called Shanta Devi aged thirteen years. The challan is being tried by the Additional Magistrate, Hyderabad. In the List-A of the witnesses attached to the challan the name of Shanta Devi has been included. She has been recovered and put in a rescue house. On 11-5-1954, the girl was in Court, and the Superintendent of the house was asked to bring her the next day "as she would be examined". On this date the prosecution petitioned for the summoning of three witnesses. But the Court in the order-sheet of the aforesaid date has held that they would be called afterwards. On the next date, i. e. , 12-5-1954, the prosecution presented an application that they had already asked for summoning of three witnesses who had not been called, a different witness, Shanta Devi, had been called for examination whom the prosecution did not want to examine at this stage, and the witnesses already mentioned in the earlier application be summoned as they were more important and necessary in the case. On the back of the application the Magistrate passed the order that the argument concerning the non-examination of the girl at this stage and calling of the other witnesses first had no force, notwithstanding the right of the prosecution to examine witnesses in the order it considers best there was no justification. in prolonging the case and not examining the P. W. present in the Court and the P. W. can be examined. In the record of the case which we had. called for, there is a paper used for recording depositions of witnesses with the name of the girl, her age given as 19 years and occupation. There is, the further writing "deposed on oath", and then, there is a dash with the signature of the Magistrate and the date.
(3.) FROM the order-sheet of 12-5-1954, it appears that after the petition was rejected the Court asked the prosecution to begin the examination. But the prosecuting officer stated that he did not want to produce the P. W. at all. Thereafter the Advocate of the accused submitted that the Magistrate must examine her, and wanted to argue the point with authority, and the argument was postponed for the next day. On 13-5-1954, arguments were heard:, and order delivered on 15-5-1954, which the accused seeks to vacate by this revision petition.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.