- (1.) The petitioners have preferred this revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated August 27, 2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in G. R. Case No.86 of 2011, by which learned Magistrate refused to summon Investigating Officer as defence witness under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) The affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners is kept on record. It appears from record that the petitioners are facing trial before the court of learned Magistrate on the allegation of committing offence under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that out of nine prosecution witnesses cited in the charge sheet five prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the remaining four prosecution witnesses including Investigating Officer were not examined by the prosecution. Mr. Das further submits that there were many contradictions in the evidence of P. W. 1 and the statement given by P. W. 1 as the maker of the First Information Report and the defence will be prejudiced if the defence does not get the opportunity to seek clarification of those contradictions from the Investigating Officer of the case. According to Mr. Das, learned Magistrate is not justified in refusing to summon Investigating Officer as defence witness by passing impugned order on August 27, 2015.;