Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 6 (MP)

Omprakash v. State of M. P.

2012-01-02

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, SHUBHADA R.WAGHMARE

body2012
JUDGMENT : As per A.K. Shrivastava, J.:- Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-12-2011 passed by the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Ujjain in Special Case No. 7/02, the applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 of the Cr.PC. 2. The contention of the Counsel for the applicant is that after closure of the evidence of the prosecution, a list of witnesses was submitted by the applicant in the Trial Court to examine certain witnesses and prayer was made that the witnesses be summoned. However, the learned Special Judge has rejected the prayer and closed the right to examine the defence witnesses. Counsel for the applicant has prayed that the defence witnesses are to be examined to prove the defence and apart from this the Public Prosecutor has delayed the trial for near about four months. Hence, the applicant/accused should be permitted to summon the witnesses. It has also been submitted that earlier the Special Judge permitted to summon the witnesses, but later the right has been closed. 3. On the other hand, Shri Anand Soni, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/prosecution has supported the impugned order. 4. We are of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed. The evidence of the prosecution has been closed. The Counsel for the applicant/accused has stated that thirteen witnesses in defence have already been examined. However, some of the witnesses-are yet to be examined and they are the material witnesses in order to prove the defence taken by the applicant. 5. On bare perusal of the order as well as the application dated 16-9-2011, it is not clear that the witnesses, which are to be summoned relates to prove, which set of the facts. Hence; the impugned order is hereby set aside and the applicant/accused is hereby directed to file a separate application disclosing that which witness is related to prove which set of facts. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by learned Special Judge in accordance.to the law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed of. The impugned order is set aside. C.c. as per rules.