- (1.) DEV Kant Trivedi, J. By means of the present revision, the complainant of Crime No. 36 of 1995 has assailed the orders dated 3rd June, 1999 whereby the applications 92-Kha and 93-Kha moved by him before Special Judge, Essential Com modities, Kanpur Nagar in S. T. No. 980 of 1995 were rejected.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also learned A. G. A. The complainant by means of the application 92-Kha made prayer for sum moning the Investigating Officer and by means of 93-Kha prayed for summoning a witness namely, Dr. Piyush Mishra Medi cal Officer, K. P. M. Hospital Kanpur Nagar to assail the veracity of a defence witness. Learned Trial Judge considered the two applications and rejected both the ap plications.
(3.) LEARNED Trial Judge observed in the impugned orders that the summoning of the Investigating Officer was not neces sary in the circumstances of the case at the instance of the complainant as no prejudice was likely to be caused to the prosecution by their non-examination in asmuch as all the papers which were re quired to be proved by the. Investigating Officer had already been admitted by the accused persons. The observations of the learned Judge has been to be wholly jus tified and he committed no error what soever in declining to summon the Inves tigating Officer. So far as the order on other ap plication 93-Kha whereby the complainant sought for an order summoning another doctor with a view to assail the veracity of the defence witness, the learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that there was no need to do so as the summoning of the doctor was not at all necessary or ex pedient in the interest of justice.;