Sheo Bux Singh vs State of U.P.

H.C. Mittal, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the learned Assistant Government Advocate. The petition is admitted and at the request of both the learned counsel it is finally disposed of as very short question is involved. After the close of the prosecution evidence and recording of the statement of the accused, the accused moved an application to summon the witnesses in defence and that application has been rejected with the following words:

"Heard. Rejected as there is no good ground. The case is at the stage of defence."

Sd. Q.K. Ahmad

IVth Addl. Distt. Judge, Lko.

3.12.1988

Prima facie the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge is apparently wrong and an abuse of the process of the court when Section 233, Cr.P.C. itself specifically provides:

"(1) Where the accused is not acquitted under Section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof.

(2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record.

(3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused *on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice."

In view of the above specific provisions in subclause (3) it was the duty of the Judge to issue process unless he considered for the reasons to be recorded that such application was to be refused on the ground that it was made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. No such reasoning has been given by the learned Session Judge.

The application is allowed. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to issue process to the witnesses sought to be summoned by the accused applicant to be examined in defence.

Application allowed.