HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THIS revision is directed against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla, calling upon the accused-petitioner to deposit expenses of the witnesses summoned by him,
(2.)THE petitioner along with others is being tried for offences Under Sections 465, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Penal Code. After the prosecution had closed its case the petitioner was duly examined under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The petitioner made an application summoning various persons as defence witnesses. One of the witnesses summoned ly the petitioner is Shri Des Raj Sood. This witness is stated to be presently living at New Delhi. The Magistrate issued a summons to this witness and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 155/- as expenses for the witness. This amount was duly deposited by the petitioner. However, on the date fixed for hearing neither the witness was present nor the summons was received back after service. The Magistrate, therefore, directed the petitioner to take summons dasti and serve it on the witness for the next date of hearing. The petitioner duly took summons for service to New Delhi but he failed to serve the witness who was stated to have gone out of Delhi. The report was accordingly given to the Court. Now the Magistrate found that the summons returned by the petitioner without service did not have the signatures of any witness in whose presence the petitioner visited the house of the witness for serving the summons. In these circumstances the Magistrate ordered that this witness will be produced by the petitioner on his own responsibility though he could have the summons from the Court on payment of process fee.
(3.)ANOTHER witness who was sought to be summoned by the petitioner was the Record Keeper of the State Bank of India, Simla Branch. He was to produce some documents asked for by the petitioner. One Chet Ram Sharma, Recprd Keeper, appeared in the Court on 2nd July, 1981 in obedience to the summons issued to him. He stated that he could not bring the requisitioned record since it was not available with the Simla Branch of the Bank. On 9th July, 1981 the petitioner made an application to the Court stating that the record in question has since been sent by the State Bank of India, Simla Branch to its Head Office at Bombay and, therefore, the record should be summoned from Bombay. It was also prayed that the Manager, State Bank of India, Simla, may be directed to obtain the requisitioned record from their Head Office at Bombay and produce the same. The Magistrate directed that the relevant record be summoned from Bombay "through special messenger on payment of diet money and necessary expenditure to be paid by the accused within three days. " On this date of hearing Chet Ram, Record Keeper was also present and he was discharged. However, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 25/- as diet money to Chet Ram for each day he came to the court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.