Section 311 Cr.P.C to issue summons= it is the accused, who suggested to PW-1 with regard to the presence of three witnesses and thereby, proceeded to allow the revision permitting the prosecution to summon all the witnesses, by order dated 18-10-2012. = “ The provisions of Sec.311 Cr.P.C shows that the Court is empowered to summon any witnesses whether, mentioned in the charge sheet or otherwise, if Court finds that their presence is required for arriving at the correct facts. Since the respondent himself has brought it on record that the sister and brother-in-law of PW-1 who are none other than Raisa Sultana and Mohd. Mazaruddin were present at the time of the offence, the Court should not have any problem in summoning the said witnesses for assessing the facts from the said witnesses, particularly, when they happen to be closely related not only to the De-facto complainant but also to the accused, who are brothers. Hence, the said witnesses cannot be termed as interested witnesses or witnesses introduced for the purpose of settling of civil matters between the parties as concluded by the trial court”.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.44 of 2013


(Dated: 21-01-2013)

Between:

Malik Mohammad Zubair S/o late Malik Mohammad Wahed
Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District
….Petitioner

               A n d

State of A.P., rep. by it’s
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P
Hyderabad
….Respondent































THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.44 of 2013


ORDER:

        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 18-12-2012 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.35 of 2012 on the file of IX Additional Sessions Judge, at Kamareddy, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the prayer of the prosecution to summon Raisa Sultana, Mohd. Zafer and Mohd. Mazaruddin Afsar.

        Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

        It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the proposed witnesses are interested witnesses; and therefore, they cannot be summoned to speak on behalf of the prosecution.

        As seen from the material placed on record, the petitioner suggested to PW-1 with regard to presence of Raisa Sultana, Mohd. Zafer and Mohd. Mazaruddin Afsar.  It prompted the prosecution to file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to issue summons to the three witnesses so as to examine them to substantiate the case against the petitioner/accused.
        The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge allowed Crl.M.P.No.912 of 2012 in part, by order dated 6.9.2012, and permitted the prosecution to examine Mohd. Zafer as witnesses while rejecting the prayer of the prosecution to summon two other witnesses. 

The prosecution filed Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2012 aggrieved by the order of rejection to summon the remaining witnesses.

        The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that
it is the accused, who suggested to PW-1 with regard to the presence of three witnesses and thereby, proceeded to allow the revision permitting the prosecution to summon all the witnesses, by order dated 18-10-2012.  
For better appreciation, I may refer para (8) of the order impugned in the revision and it is thus:-
“        The provisions of Sec.311 Cr.P.C shows that the Court is empowered to summon  any witnesses whether, mentioned  in the charge sheet or otherwise, if Court finds  that their presence is required for  arriving at the correct facts.  Since the respondent himself has brought  it on record that the sister and brother-in-law of PW-1 who are none other than  Raisa Sultana and Mohd. Mazaruddin were present  at the time of the offence, the Court should not have any problem  in summoning  the said witnesses for assessing the facts from the said witnesses, particularly,  when they happen to be closely related not only to the De-facto complainant  but also to the accused, who are brothers.   Hence, the said witnesses cannot be termed as interested witnesses or witnesses introduced for the purpose of settling of civil matters between the parties as concluded by the trial court”.

        The reasoning assigned by the revisional court in permitting the prosecution to examine the above-referred witness cannot be found fault.

        Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

_____________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.21-01-2013

RAR


























Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.