Sailendra Prasad Talukdar ( 1 ) THE present case arises out of an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) IT is directed against the order dated 30. 12. 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, (8th Court), Calcutta in Case No. C/217/99 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows : opposite Party No. 1, Asish Kumar Mallick, as complainant in Case No. C/217/99, filed an application dated 15. 9. 2004 before the learned trial Court wherein he stated that the name of Sri Chandan Guha, Sub-Inspector of Police, was cited as a witness in the list of witnesses. The learned trial Court, however, passed an order in the said complaint case whereby Sri Guha was placed as an accused in the case. Complainant, however, sought to rely upon the evidence of Sri Guha, whom he wanted to be a witness. Prayer was, accordingly, made for enabling the complainant to make Sri Guha a witness on his behalf. ( 4 ) IN response to the said application the learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 30. 12. 2004 allowed the application and fixed up a date for examination of said Sri Guha, accused No. 3 in the case. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, by filing the instant application, alleged that the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in allowing such an application filed on behalf of the present Opposite Party No. 1, who is complainant before the trial Court, and it was categorically alleged that the impugned order suffers from inherent illegality. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing of the application, reference was made to section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with a situation where accused person is a competent witness. ( 7 ) SECTION 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code, however, relates to a different situation and it lays down that any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court shall be competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial. It is clearly pointed out that such a person shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing and his failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the Court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same trial. The factual backdrop of the present case, as earlier pointed out, is entirely different. Here the said accused, Sri Chandan Guha, did not make any request in writing, nor any prayer was made by him for calling him as a witness. The petition was filed on behalf of the complainant and not for giving evidence in disproof of charges. Strangely enough, the materials on record do not reveal the stand taken by Sri Guha in this regard. He did not file any application challenging the said order thereby allowing the complainant to examine him as a witness. But, even in absence of an application filed by him, this Court cannot ignore the grievances raised on behalf of the present petitioner, who along with another person and Sri Guha are facing trial in the case under reference. It is, perhaps, needless to mention that an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself and it is for the complainant to explore the means for production of best possible evidence in order to establish the charge framed on the basis of his allegations. The learned trial Court took into consideration the fact that such proposed witness was cited as a witness by the complainant and the learned trial Court only placed him as an accused in the case. That order having not been challenged, there is little scope to do anything at this stage. Mere fact that such accused if allowed to be examined as witness on behalf of the complainant can identify certain signatures, does not by itself be sufficient justification for allowing the said application. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, the impugned order thus, suffers from inherent impropriety, which certainly calls for interference by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated 30. 12. 2004 be set aside. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, the impugned order thus, suffers from inherent impropriety, which certainly calls for interference by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated 30. 12. 2004 be set aside. This will, however, not stand in the way of Sri Guha's praying for allowing him to be examined in the case and if such a prayer is made, the learned trial Court will certainly be at liberty to consider the same. ( 9 ) SO, the instant application, being case No. C. R. R. 731 of 2005 be allowed. The impugned order dated 30. 12. 2005 be set aside. The learned trial court is directed to go ahead with further proceeding of the case and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. A copy of the order be sent to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action.