Hari Charan vs The State on 29 November, 1951
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has cited -- 'Bijai Raj v. State', AIR 1950 Ajmer 25(2) (B) and -- 'Vishambhar Dayal v. Emperor', AIR 1941 Oudh 33 (C). It was held in the first case that it was not for a Court of revision to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in the matter of deciding which of the witnesses desired to be summoned by the prosecution were necessary witnesses. In the second case, it was held that the Court was not bound to summon all the witnesses cited by an accused person under Section 257, Criminal P. C., and it has power to refuse to summon all the witnesses, on the ground, that the application was made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. These authorities, however, are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In view of the authority cited on behalf of the petitioner I am of the opinion that under Section 94, Criminal P. C., the trial Court should have called these documents or else should have recorded the reasons for not calling these documents at that stage. The learned Magistrate could not refuse to call these documents, merely on the ground that these could be summoned in defence, if at all needed. Accordingly, I submit the record of the case to the Hon'ble High Court with the recommendation that the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 11-8-1951 may be set aside and he may be directed to summon these documents.