Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J. - (1.) THE facts leading to the filing of this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India are that Mohinder Singh Petitioner is married to Smt. Chhoti alias Surjit Kaur. Smt. Chhoti filed proceedings under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) against the Petitioner which were registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, as Application No. 16/4 of 1972, Chhoti v. Mohinder Singh. After trial the learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the application of Smt. Chhoti and awarded Rs. 50/ - per month as maintenance to her. A revision against the order of maintenance which the Petitioner took before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, was unsuccessful. The Petitioner filed on 23rd October 1975 the present petition before this Court on various grounds.
(2.) ON 5th March, 1976 another application Criminal Misc. No. 1246 of 1976 was filed for permission to file additional grounds for quashing the orders already challenged. This application was allowed subject to just exceptions and the Petitioner took the ground that Smt. Malkiat Kaur sister of Smt. Chhoti was married to Harnek Singh brother of the Petitioner. Malkiat Kaur had also filed the proceedings for maintenance against Harnek Singh in the same Court at Ludhiana and the same was registered as No. 15/4 of 1972. The learned Magistrate did not record the evidence in Application 16/4 of 1972 but copied out the evidence which he had recorded in Application 15/4 of 1972 Malkiat four v. Harnek Singh. On the application of the Petitioner the files of both the cases, that is, Chhoti v. Mohinder Singh and Malkiat Kaur v. Harnek Singh were sent for in this Court. With the help of the counsel for the parties I have gone through the evidence of the parties and find that the statements of Rattan Dass (P. W. 3) Sadhu Singh (P. W. 4). Ranjit Singh (R. W. 4) and Kartara (R. W. 5) are recorded in original in case Chhoti v. Mohinder Singh Application No. 16/4 of 1972 A perusal of the file of case No. 15/4 of 1972 Malkiat Kaur v. Harnek Singh of the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ludhiana shows that the carbon copies of the statements of Rattan Dass (P.W. 3), Sadhu Singh (P.W. 4), Ranjit Singh (R. W. 4) and Kauara (R. W. 5) are placed on the record of this case, i.e. 15/4 of 1972. A further examination of these riles shows that the statement of Niranjan Singh (P. W. 6) was recorded in case No. 15/4 of 1972, that is Malkiat Kaur v. Harnek Singh and its carbon copy is placed in case No. 16/4 of 1972 Chhott v. Mohinde Singh as the statement of Niranjan Singh (P. W. 6).
(3.) A joint study of both the cases Malkiat Kaur v. Harnek Singh Application No. 15/4 of 1972 and Chhoti alias Surju Kaur v. Mohinder Singh Application No. 16/4 of 1972 decided by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana shows that the statement of Niranjan Singh (P. W. 6) was recorded in Malkiat Kaur's A carbon copy of his statement prepared in the same process's was placed as P. W. 6 in Chhoti's case. In that copy the cuttings and the spellings of incorrectly written words are exactly the same. A lock or the statement of Niranjan Singh (P. W. 6) in Chhoti's case leaves no room for doubt that this witness was not examined in a regular manner in this case.;