James, J. - (1.) IN this application on behalf of certain persons against whom the Magistrate is making an enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure the grievance of the applicants is that certain documents were necessary to enable them to effectively cross -examine prosecution witnesses but the learned Magistrate has turned down their request for summoning these documents.
(2.) THE matter is concluded by the recent decision of Raghubar Dayal, J. in Munshi Singh v. The State, 1952 A.W.R. (H.C.) 626, wherein his Lordship has held that documents cannot come on the record as mere papers, that the documents which require to be proved can lawfully come on the record only when the witnesses who prove them are examined, and that Clause (3) of Section 208 of the Code does not give a party the right to compel the other party to produce any document merely on its request. The applicants' Learned Counsel has given some illustrations on how the decision of Raghubar Dayal, J. might work hardship on an accused person; for instance, if the complainant's injury report is not on the file the accused's counsel will not be able to properly cross -examine him with regard to his injuries or the manner of sustaining them; on this ground the Learned Counsel wishes to throw doubt on the correctness of the Hon'ble Judges decision. For my own part I, if I may say so with the greatest respect, find myself in complete agreement with the view of the learned Judge, and I am firmly of opinion that his decision does not call for reconsideration.
(3.) THE learned Judge has observed in his judgment that the accused has simply to satisfy the Court that it is necessary to put further questions to certain witnesses and the Court has power to recall those witnesses and to have cross -examined them in respect of those questions. Thus the illustrations of the applicants' Learned Counsel are found fully covered by that decision.;