JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the learned trial Court dated 16.9.1992 whereby Dr. S.K. Pathak was summoned to give evidence by it. 2. It appears that the petitioners are being tried for offence under Section 302 & 302/34, IPC. Charges were framed on 29.1.1990. Accused-petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution commenced its evidence on 21.2.1990 and examined PW 1-Babulal, PW 2- Ratanlal, PW 3-Ramu, PW-4 Sita Ram, PW 5-Rajendra alies Modia, PW 6-Hansraj, PW 7-Bansilal, PW 8-Bansilal s/o Mahadev, PW 9-Kailash Chand Sharma, PW 10-Kishanlal, PW 11-Sardar Singh, PW 12-Sitaram, PW 13-Pappu, PW 14-Nand Kishore, PW 15-Bhagwana Ram. PW 16-Krishna Kumar, PW 17- Roop Singh, PW 18-Dr. Shivratan Kochar. Statement of Dr. Shivratan Kochar was recorded on 5.1.1991. The investigating officer (Nath Singh, Cl) was examined on 27.2.1991. Thereafter, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. They did not lead any defence and the matter was finally heard. The case was posted for judgment. 3. On 16.9.92, the learned trial court summoned Dr. S.K. Pathak and started recording his statement on the question of time for which Amar Singh alias Baba deceased, could have lived after he had received injuries described in post mortem report (Ex.P. 17). This was objected to on behalf on the accused-petitioners on the ground that Dr. Shivratan Kochar had already been examined as he had conducted post mortem examination. Dr. S.K. Pathak was not cited as prosecution witness. The learned trial Court dis- allowed the objection and observed, that this was a material question as to for what period the deceased had remained conscious after receiving injuries mentioned in post mortem report. (Ex.P. 17). 4. The petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the course adopted by the learned trial court in examining Dr. Pathak as prosecution witness, who had no occasion to conduct post mortem examination or see Amar Singh (deceased) after he had received injuries mentioned in Ex.P. 17. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor very fairly and frankly concedes that Dr. Shivratan Kochar was only competent witness to make statement on this point and it was not necessary to examine Dr. Pathak who had not seen the deceased and who had not conducted post mortem examination. 6. I have considered rival contentions and have gone through the record of the learned trial court. Shivratan Kochar was only competent witness to make statement on this point and it was not necessary to examine Dr. Pathak who had not seen the deceased and who had not conducted post mortem examination. 6. I have considered rival contentions and have gone through the record of the learned trial court. In my opinion, it was not at all necessary for the learned trial Court to summon Dr. S.K.Pathak as witness particularly when he had not medically examined Amar Singh (deceased) while Amar Singh was alive and he did not conduct post mortem. His opinion on the basis of the post mortem report given by Dr. Shivratan Kochar would not have been of much assistance to the Court. In my opinion, to examine Dr. S.K. Pathak as witness in this case was an abuse of process of the Court. The learned trial Court should have refrained from summoning and examining Dr. S.K. Pathak as witness. 7. Consequently, I accept this misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and quash the order of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities cases, Jaipur, passed on 16.9.1992 in Sess. case No. 30/90. Statement of Dr. S.K. Pathak recorded in part shall hot be read in evidence and shall not be a part of the record. The record of the court below be returned back along with a copy of this order forthwith. *******