SARADA CHARAN PARIJA Vs. NARI SWAIN AND TEN ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant is the Petitioner in this criminal revision directed against an order dated April 1, 1959, passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting an application made by the complainant for examination of certain witnesses under Section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure in G.R. Case No.1866 of 1955.

(2.) THE case arose out of an incident which took place more than four years ago on October 8, 1955. The First Information Report was lodged by the Petitioner on the same day. On October 22, 1955, the charge -sheet was filed in which the accused persons were charged under Sections 147, 323 and 342, Indian Penal Code. The trial commenced on December 5, 1955 on which date the prosecution witness P.W. 1 out of ten prosecution witnesses was examined. On December 9, 1955, as it appears from records, the investigating officer was summoned as a witness. On September 10, 1957, P.W. 10 was examined. On January 9, 1958 summons was issued to certain witnesses. It is clear from the order -sheet that there was inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution to examine the witnesses. In fact, as it appears from the order dated May 16, 1958, the learned Magistrate observed that the delay appeared to be vexatious and therefore on June 8, 1958, the evidence of certain witnesses was directed by the learned Magistrate to be expunged by reason of the prosecution not having offered the said witnesses for cross -examination. For ready reference, the order dated June 8, 1958, as appears from the order -sheet, reads as follows:

(3.) ON the particular aspect, in this case, that the witness who the complainant prayed, should be called to be examined, was a material witness. Mr. S.K. Ray contended that in a criminal trial it is of the utmost importance that the prosecution would examine the investigating officer, whose absence places the accused sometimes at a great disadvantage. The Courts trying such important cases should always insist on the examination of the investigating officer, for his examination is of great assistance to the Court and also to the accused Dibakar Sarangi v. The State, 21 CLT 451.