M BHIMASEKHARA RAO Vs. STATE VISAKHAPATNAM
LAWS(APH)-1992-11-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 20,1992

M.BHIMASEKHARA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE VISAKHAPATNAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JUMO LAL BAKHSH V.EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
RONALD WOOD MATHAMS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
JIT SINGH RATTAN SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
THOMAS SHORUNKE VS. KING [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order of the V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in Crl. M.P.No.1509/91 in C.C.No.157/85 dt.9-10-91. The petitioner immediately after the examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. filed a petition under Sec.243 Cr.P.C. to summon 24 witnesses listed in the petition for adducing their evidence on behalf of the accused. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that it is only with vaxatious reasons to procrastinating the matter for some more time which should not be allowed as per Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. Another reason in dismissing the application by the learned Magistrate is that the defence has not expressed their ready and willingness to deposit the amount for summoning the witnesses that were sought to be examined on behalf of the accused.
(2.)It is well settled that the accused must be given due opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf and to produce documents, if any, and the delay in examining the witnesses or inconvenience said to be caused to the witnesses are not matters that were to be taken into consideration, when the accused desires to examine the witnesses. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has completed the trial of the case including the examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused filed a petition u/s. 243 Cr.P.C. to summon 24 witnesses listed therein. In such a case, the learned Magistrate is the competent person to verify whether the 24 listed witnesses submitted by the accused, can be summoned as witnesses on behalf of the accused as well as the purpose for which they were sought to be examined or summoned. The learned Magistrate is also empowered to refuse such an application if it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
(3.)On a careful perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the accused has not furnished the full details of each of the witnesses with their present address and the purpose for which they were sought to be summoned. As contemplated under Sec.243(3) Cr.P.C. the accused failed to deposit the reasonable expenses incurred by the witnesses, immediately.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.