Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. There may be instances where the complainant along with complaint, a list of witnesses would have been filed and they might have been examined at the first instance namely, at the time of Magistrate taking cognizance of offence or their evidence recorded under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. when accused appears or brought before the Magistrate or in some instances, the complainant may propose to examine additional witnesses. It is in this background, expression "remaining witnesses" occurring in sub- section (6) of Section 246 Cr.P.C. would acquire significance. A bare reading of sub-section (6) of Section 246 Cr.P.C. would disclose that expression 'remaining witnesses' is not limited to those witnesses referred to in Section 244 Cr.P.C. alone and it would include any other witnesses, who according to the prosecution may be able to support its case, though they might have not been summoned and named before framing of the charge. There may be instances where in the witness list furnished along with the complaint, some of the witnesses who have been named in the list had not been examined when evidence on behalf of prosecution/complainant came to be recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, complainant/prosecution may be of the view that evidence of those persons whose name/s is already found in the list is also required to be tendered since they would be able to support the case of the complainant/prosecution and as such, complainant/prosecution intends to examine such of the witnesses whose names are already appearing in the list. Even such witnesses would fall within the four corners of expression 'remaining witnesses'. Further, complainant may also intend to examine witnesses whose names are not found in the list already furnished along with the complaint by submitting an additional list or supplementary list of witnesses. Thus, sub- section (6) of Section 246 Cr.P.C. enable the complainant/prosecution to furnish additional list of witnesses for being examined on behalf of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

"9. Now, the question is whether a supplementary list of witnesses can be furnished by the complainant and the Magistrate can summon those witnesses to be examined. The question is whatever witnesses who have been examined under Section 244 CrPC, whether the Magistrate cannot entertain any further list of witnesses to be examined by the complainant to substantiate his allegation in the complaint. It is true that under Section 244 CrPC if the charge is framed, then the prosecution has to examine the evidence produced by it in support of its case. After that the accused will have the right to cross-examine and the matter will proceed to be decided under Section 246. But before the matter is decided and during the pendency of the trial can the Magistrate entertain any petition filed by the prosecution for examining additional evidence in support of its case.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the following decisions of various High Courts: 
 (i)     Jamuna Rani v. S. Krishna
          Kumar
  (ii)    Nawal Kishore Shukla v. State of
          U.P.
  (iii)   S.    Vivekanantham     v.    R.
          Viswanathan
  (iv)    V. Ratna Shenoy v. S.A.Prabhu
  (v)     State of Bombay v. Janardhan
  (vi)    K. Somasundaram v. Gopal
11. Before we refer to decisions of various High Courts, it may be mentioned here that the discretion of the Magistrate is nowhere fettered by any of the provisions contained in CrPC. Section 244 CrPC reads as under:
22*. In the warrant trial instituted otherwise than the police report, the complainant gets two opportunities to lead evidence, firstly, before the charge is framed and secondly, after the framing of the charge. Of course, under Section 245(2) CrPC, a Magistrate can discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case, if he finds the charge to be groundless.
23. Essentially, the applicable sections are Sections 244 and 245 CrPC since this is a warrant trial instituted otherwise than on police report. There had to be an opportunity for the prosecution to lead evidence under Section 244(1) CrPC or to summon its witnesses under Section 244(2) CrPC. This did not happen and instead, the accused proceeded to file an application under Section 245(2) CrPC on the ground that the charge was groundless.