Babulal Patkar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

B.D. Rathi, J.—With consent, the matter is finally heard. This petition has been preferred, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), challenging the order dated 26.8.2013 passed by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act")), at Satna in Special Case No. 02/2008, whereby the trial Court rejected the prayer for summoning certain witnesses in defence and directed the petitioner to keep them present if he so desired.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on one hand, trial Court has allowed the application (Ex. D/2) dated 23/8/13 to examine six witnesses named therein, but on the other, it was directed that the petitioner shall keep them present before the trial Court. He contended that it is not possible to keep them present without summoning them, as certain witnesses are Government employees and, therefore, he prayed that the said witnesses be directed to be summoned by the trial Court.

In response, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

A bare perusal of order dated 26/8/13 would reveal that it was directed by the trial Court that the petitioner, if he so desired, could keep the said six witnesses present before the trial Court. List of these witnesses dated 23/8/13 shows that out of them, witness no. 1 Present Patwari of Village Lolach, witness no. 2 Rajlalan Saket, Patwari of Village Pipracha and witness no. 3 Narendra Kanojia, Bank Valuer are the witnesses to whom, it would be appropriate to issue summons because they are not private witnesses. So far as other witnesses are concerned, it was the discretion of the trial Court and no interference therewith is called for.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed in part. Trial Court is directed to issue summons to the above named three witnesses. Needless to say that right of the petitioner to examine them shall stand closed in the event of (i) any lapse on the part of the petitioner with regard to furnishing process fee, TA/DA, address etc. and (ii) employment of delay tactics by petitioner, for summoning them. Copy be sent to the trial Court for compliance.