2006 YLR 2178
S. 540---Interpretation and scope of S. 540, Cr. P. C. ---Power of the Court to summon material witness or examine persons present---Court under S.540, Cr. P. C. was empowered to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any witness, if his evidence appeared to it essential to the just decision of the case---Section 540, Cr. P. C. was divided into two parts; the first part was discretionary in nature, whereas second part was mandatory; as per first part of S.540, Cr. P. C. , it was discretionary power of the Court to summon any person as a witness suo motu or on an application, whereas according to second part, the power to summon, examine or recall and re-examine any person as a witness was to be exercised with care and caution---Court could not use said power to advance the cause of prosecution or defence, but said power was only meant to advance the cause of justice---Solitary principle of judicial proceedings in criminal case was to find out the truth and to arrive at a correct conclusion and to see that any innocent person was not punished, merely because of certain technical omission on his part or on the part of the Court, if it appeared essential to the Court that evidence was necessary for just decision of the case---Under second part of S.540, Cr. P. C. , it was obligatory to the Court to examine such a witness ignoring technical and formal objections---For summoning Investigating Officer as a Court witness , party seeking summoning him, had to satisfy the Court that evidence of such police officer was necessary for the Court to come to right conclusion on the question of guilt or innocence of accused---Unless that condition was satisfied refusal to summon police officer as a Court witness would be justified---No illegality existed in the impugned order passed by Court below in reaching to the conclusion that summoning of the police officers as Court witness , was not essential to reach the just conclusion of the case
2006 YLR 2872
Ss. 540 & 439---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Summoning of material witnesses---Application for---Respondent, who was one of accused persons, moved an application to Trial Court under S. 540, Cr. P. C. to summon S. H. O. Police Station concerned and Investigating Officer, who had been given up by the prosecution---Trial Court after hearing parties accepted application and ordered summoning of both said officials as Court witness es and said order of Trial Court had been challenged by petitioner/ complainant by means of revision---Validity---Trial Court had given elaborate reasons for summoning said two witnesses---Section 540, Cr.P.C., was intended to enable. Courts to get at the truth and mere fact that some important witnesses had been given up by prosecution, would not absolve the Court from said responsibility---Courts of law ought not to leave themselves to the mercy of parties---Section 540, Cr. P. C. conferred wide discretionary .,powers on the Trial Court to summon any witness at any stage of trial---While exercising powers under S.540, Cr. P. C. all that Courts required to ensure, was that evidence of witness who had been summoned, would have some bearing on determining the guilt or innocence of accused---Counsel for petitioner had not been able to point out any feature of case whereby, it could be said that discretion exercised by the Trial Court was absurd, arbitrary or fanciful---Mere fact that Trial Court previously had turned down plea of co-accused to summon two persons as Court witness es under S.540, Cr. P. C. , was by itself no reason to turn down subsequent application of the respondent as well
2022 MLD 70
S.540---Power of court to summon material witness or examine person present---Scope---Petitioner, an accused in private complaint, assailed order passed by trial court declining the summoning of two witnesses of challan case cited in the calendar of witnesses as Court witness es in private complaint---Petitioner argued that the statements of said witnesses of challan case could not be read in evidence in the private complaint hence, they were required to be examined---Held; present case was not the one in which police challan case and the private complaint case was to be proceeded with one after the other or the private complaint case to be proceeded earlier requiring all the witnesses of police challan case to be recorded after the closure of prosecution evidence, if not examined---Both the cases were proceeding side by side---If the petitioner deemed it appropriate that the stance of subject two private witnesses should be brought on record in the private complaint as well, he would have ample opportunity to get them examined as defence witnesses---Trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case
0 Comments