- (1.) NASEEMUDDIN, J. This revision has been filed by Shailendra Kumar against the order dated 25-1-2001 passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Tripathi, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Criminal Case No. 3541 of 1999 (Crime No. 595 of 1984, Police Station Kotwali, district Unnao) whereby an application dated 6-1-2001 moved by the revisionist before the trial Court for recall of order dated 15-9-2000 was rejected. By order dated 15- 9-2000 an order was passed by the CJM allowing the prayer of the prosecution to permit the prosecution to produce the revisionist as a witness in order to prove the First Information Report lodged by the revisionist.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for both the parties were heard. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the present revision are that First Information Report was lodged with the police in the year 1984 by the revisionist with the allegation that an offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 12-B and Section 408 I. P. C. had been committed in the Bank namely Avadh Gramin Bank (Bank of India ). After registering of the case an investigation started and ultimately charges-sheet was submitted against certain persons including the present revisionist. The revisionist challenged the order of taking of cognizance. Other charge-sheeted persons also challenged the order of taking of cognizance. The revisionist was discharged whereas others were to stand their trial as prayer for discharge was rejected by the Court of Sessions. The order of discharge in favour of the revisionist stood confirmed from the Court of Sessions. The case proceeded against the other persons in which the First Information Report lodged admittedly with the police by the revisionist is to be proved. The revisionist was an accused earlier in the charge-sheet and, therefore, he was not named as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet. The only argument on behalf of the revisionist is that the revisionist cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself because he was an accused in the case earlier. It is further argued that he was not named as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet. In reply it was urged that since the revisionist was named as an accused, therefore, he could not be mentioned as a prosecution witness in the list of witnesses submitted with the charge-sheet. A person who is not named as a witness and is a material witness and whose evidence is primary should be produced by the prosecution. To this the only objection of the revisionist is that he can be examined as a Court witness and not as a prosecution witness. This argument is based on the false assumption that in case the revisionist is examined as a Court witness then he shall not be taken to be a witness against himself whereas if he is examined on behalf of the prosecution then he shall be taken to be a witness against himself. Needless to say and as has been said above this is a false notion. Under Section 311 Cr. P. C. the Court may summon any person as a witness or examine any persons in attendance or re-examine any persons as a witness if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. In the present case it is obvious that the First Information Report was lodged by the revisionist and he is the primary person to prove the same. The argument that secondary evidence may be led to prove the First Information Report is misconceived. The Court had the jurisdiction to permit the prosecution to produce a witness whose evidence appear to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. The proof of the First Information Report by the informant is essential for the decision of the case because it was this First Information Report which had moved the criminal law into motion and it was on the basis of this First Information Report that investigation started and charged-sheet was submitted. The examination on behalf of the prosecution or on behalf of the Court makes no difference at all and does not make ipso facto a witness an accused. The revisionist is no longer an accused and cannot be converted as an accused from the position of a witness simply because he appears on behalf of a particular party or is examined by the Court. The order under revision is of an interlocutory in nature. In any case the revision is devoid of any merit and has got no force and is, therefore, dismissed. The stay order dated 28-3-2001 stands vacated. The trial of the case should be expedited as the matter pertains to the year 1984 and it is hoped that the trial shall be concluded within a period of six months from today. The revisionist to appear before the trial Court on 12th of December, 2001. Revision dismissed. .;