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