Heard Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri S.K. Agrawal Advocate for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The summoning order dated 1.8.2009 passed by the VIth Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 866 of 2009 Inre: Bhagwan Singh Vs. Abhimannu Saini and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 394 I.P.C. is impugned in the instant revision.
The submission is that all the witnesses have not been examined under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 202(2) the summoning order is illegal. The next submission is that the summoning order was passed on 1.8.2009 fixing 31.8.2009 and thereafter on 7.8.2009 non-bailable warrant has been issued.
I have examined the summoning order. No doubt all the witnesses are required to be examined in a case exclusively triable by Sessions Court but it is prerogative of the prosecution to examine as many as witnesses it thinks proper. The witness who has not been examined under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C., can not be produced and examined during the trial. However, I do not agree with the argument that the statement and texture of the evidence is liable to be seen at this stage. Law does not contemplate a pre trial stage before the trial commence. No good ground for interference is made out. The revision is accordingly dismissed.
So far non-bailable warrant is concerned, the anxiety of the revisionists appears to be justified.
In the event, the revisionists appear before the court concerned within three weeks from today and move bail application in Complaint Case No. 866 of 2009 Inre: Bhagwan Singh Vs. Abhimannu Saini and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 394 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, preferably if possible on the same day.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010 Rmk.