- (1.) In C.C. No. 2 of 1964, the Public Prosecutor filed a complaint against one Thirupaliah complaining of an offence under Section 500 I.P.C. for having defamed a Government servant viz., Tahsildar in the discharge of his duties. In that case, the accused cited defence witnesses. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Cuddapah has passed an order directing the accused to deposit reasonable charges for the defence witnesses. The Petitioner filed this petition to revise the above order.
(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the order on the basis of Section 257 (2) Cr.P.C. It is mentioned in the said section that the Magistrate may require reasonable expenses of witnesses to be deposited in the Court. Rule 384 of the Criminal Rules of Practice runs as follows: "............the Criminal Courts will pay, at the rates specified in Rule 387, the expenses of complainants and witnesses in cases in which the prosecution is instituted or carried on by, or under the orders, or with the sanction of the Government, or of any Judge, Magistrate or other Public Officer, when it shall appear to the Judge or Magistrate presiding over such Courts to be directly in furtherance of the interests of public justice................"
(3.) The complaint was filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 193-B of the Crl. P. C. Sub-section (3) of that section rvns as follows:- Crl. R. C. No. 243 of 1965 Crl R. P. No. 220/1965. D/ 13-7-1965. "No complaint under sub-section (1) shall be made by the Public 'I Prosecutor except with the previous sanction,----- xxx (c) in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State of the Government concerned." Obviously, the Public Prosecutor filed the complaint on the basis of sanction by the Goverment for filing of such complaint. The Government sanctioned such filing of a complaint because it considered necessary to do so for furtherance of the interests of justice. The trial of this case is held in the interests of justice.;