Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1 An allied argument was based upon the submissions that it was not averred in the complaints that they were filed within the period of limitation and that the complaints were admittedly not accompanied by a list of witnesses as required by the express provisions of Section 204. The learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in Dhanji Mavji v. Gadhvi Govind Jiva, 1974 GLR 136, and submitted that the requirement was mandatory and the lapse was fatal to the prosecution. After referring to that judgment, a view is taken in the later judgment of this Court in A.P. Jain v. C.N. Jotwani, 1977 GLR 299 that, in the aforesaid earlier case, the complaint itself contained a statement that there were other witnesses who were intended to be examined, and therefore, it was not an authority for the proposition that there was a mandatory obligation to make a negative declaration to the effect that no witness was sought to be examined. In such circumstances, the absence of any averment regarding limitation or the absence of list of witnesses cannot ipso facto be a ground for quashing issuance of the process. A similar view is taken by the Kerala High Court in Madhavan Nambiar v. Govindan, 1982 Cri.LJ 683, wherein, relying upon a Supreme Court judgment in Mown v. Superintendent, Special Jail, 1972 SCC (Cri.) 184, it is observed that if the purposes of disclosing material against the accused were served by the complaint, the omission to file a list of witnesses will not vitiate the proceedings, and at the most, the Court may insist on a list of witnesses being filed and refuse to issue process before such a list is made available. In Kanhu Ram v. Durga Ram, 1980 Cri.LJ 518, the Himachal Pradesh High Court (through T. U. Mehta, C.J.) has, dealing with the same arguments, taken the view that even if filing of a list contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 204 is considered to be mandatory, the provisions contained in Section 465 of the Act have to be taken into consideration. The crucial question, therefore, would be whether, even if it is believed that the order issuing process was illegal, that order resulted in failure of justice? The answer to such question at this stage would obviously be in the negative since the trial has not yet proceeded further and the complainant can be asked to furnish a list of witnesses before evidence is recorded in the case so that the accused is put to notice and the purposes of the provision can be served. The following passage from the judgment of the Kerala High Court in M.O.H. Iqbal v. M. Uthaman, 1995 (82) Company Cases 726, by K.T. Thomas, J. (as His Lordship then was) can sum up the discussion as far as the grievances about the averments or lack of them in the complaint are concerned :