S M YUSUFF SAHIB GRAIN BRANCH Vs. NAMBURI HAYAGRIVA RAO
LAWS(APH)-1955-4-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 13,1955

S.M.YUSUFF SAHIB, GRAIN BRANCH, BY V. VENKATESWARLU, J.PARTNER Appellant
VERSUS
NAMBURI HAYAGRIVA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a revision against the order of the Joint Magistrate, Vijayawada, calling for three documents at the instance of the accused before charges were framed against them in a warrant case.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, under the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has no right, in a warrant case, to summon for documents before he was called upon to enter upon his defence. Sections 251 to 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribe the procedure for the trial of warrant cases. Under section 252, the Magistrate proceeds to hear the evidence of the complainant. Under section 253 he discharges the accused if no case is made out. After hearing the evidence, he frames a charge if, in the opinion of the Magistrate, there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the accused refuses to plead or if the claims to be tried, further opportunity is given to him to call for witnesses already examined to be cross-examined and the remaining witnesses of the prosecution will be examined. Thereafter, the accused shall be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence. At that stage, Section 257 says : "If the accused after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. Such ground shall be recorded by him in writing."
(3.)It is manifest from the aforesaid provisions that the right of the accused to ask for the production of any document, or, for compelling the attendance of any witnesses, accrues to him only after he is called upon, to enter upon his defence. In the present case, though the prosecution evidence was concluded, it is represented to me that the stage has not yet been reached when the accused would be called upon to enter upon his defence. If so, the order made by the Joint Magistrate calling for the production of documents at the instance of the accused was invalid.
;


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