MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dated December 10, 1993 by which he rejected the application of the accused -petitioners moved under Section 91, Cr. P.C. for the production of statements of the neighbours Atiurrehman and Bachraj Nai recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and certain documents collected during investigation.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the accused persons and the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor the learned Magistrate rejected the Application holding that the prosecution is not bound to cite in the charge -sheet all the witnesses examined under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and produce documents collected during investigation and whatever documents were considered necessary they have been enclosed with the challan. He further held that the provisions of Section 91, Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked under the facts and circumstances of the case and the accused petitioner will have full opportunity to defend themselves. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner that no reply to the said application moved under Section 91, Cr. P.C. was filed by the prosecution. As such the Prosecution cannot say that the said two witnesses were not examined and documents were not collected during investigation and the court has no power under Section 91, Cr. P.C. direction their production.
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor duly supported the order under challenge.;