- (1.) THE allegations against the petitioners are that they have entered into the house of the complainant (opposite party No. 2), have fired at her and have beaten her. But the opposite party No. 2 escaped narrowly and did not sustain any fire arm injury.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants contends that under the proviso to sub-s.(2) of S.202, Cr. P. C. it was incumbent upon the magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all of his witnesses and to examine them on oath; that the magistrate, contrary to the said provisions of law, summoned the petitioners under S.204, Cr. P. C. for the offence under S.307, IPC without examining the doctor and other witnesses. The word "his witness" occurring in the proviso to sub-s.(2) of S.202, Cr. P. C. is of material significance. The formal witnesses, such as doctor. Investigation Officer, Executive Magistrate, Police constable etc. are not under the command of the complainant. They are not the witnesses of the complainants confidence. Hence they are not "his witnesses". Thus the formal witnesses are not covered by the proviso to S.202 (2), Cr. P. C.
(3.) THE complainant is bound to produce only those witnesses of facts whom he intends to produce in the Court of Session. The witnesses of fact who are not produced under S.200 or 202, Cr. P. C. cannot be produced by him, in the Court of Session. The complainant is not bound to produce those witnesses of fact, whose names are, though mentioned in the complaint but who are not intended to be produced by him in the Court of Session.;