Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1504 (RAJ)

Kulvinder Singh v. Rajan Taneja

2017-07-07

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. The application under Section 254 was filed by the petitioner in which learned Court below denied the chance for calling the witnesses even when those witnesses were important. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has shown the impugned order in which the request of the petitioner to get Balvendra Singh, Ladhu Ram, Rugharam, Palisingh, Bindra Singh examined as witnesses have been recorded but since there was not proper addresses of the petitioner, therefore, witnesses have been not permitted by the learned Court below. As per counsel for the petitioner, the reasons given by the learned Court below is not sufficient to comply with the provisions under Section 254 of Cr.P.C. for calling the witness and it was statutory right of the petitioner to call those witnesses and in case there was discrepancy in their addresses then also the learned Court was wrong in not exercising the powers under Section 254 of Cr.P.C. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the learned Court below was of the view that there was a reason why these witnesses were not required in the present case then such reason could have been recorded whereas the learned court below has not recorded any detail reason as to how the witnesses have been refused to be called for. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submission and saying that Section 254 of Cr.P.C. is purely discretionary of the learned Court below and the impugned order is discretionary order and therefore, requires no indulgence at this stage. Inspite of service, non-appears for respondent No.2. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that Section 254 of Cr.P.C. gives ample powers to the Magistrate to exercise his discretion regarding the statement of the witnesses to be taken or not but for such discretion there has to be a reasoning as to why to think so as to suggest that the witnesses are not required. Apart from such discretion of the Magistrate, both the parties as per Section 254 of Cr.P.C. i.e. prosecution and accused have vide powers to produce their own versions through their witnesses. 6. Apart from such discretion of the Magistrate, both the parties as per Section 254 of Cr.P.C. i.e. prosecution and accused have vide powers to produce their own versions through their witnesses. 6. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed and orders dated 15.12.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar in criminal revision No.177/2015 (126/2015) titled as Kulvinder Singh v. Rajan Tajeja & Anr. and order dated 09.06.2015 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) Court No.2, Sriganganagar and order dated 15.12.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar in criminal revision No.176/2015 (127/2015) and order dated 04.07.2015 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) Court NO.2, Sriganganagar, are quashed and set aside and the learned Court below is directed to call the witnesses and examine them strictly in accordance with law to meets the ends of justice.