Skip to content


V. Ratna Shenoy Vs. S.A. Prabhu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCrl. Revision Petition 481/66
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Ker233; 1967CriLJ1517
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 204(1), 204(1A) and 256(1)
AppellantV. Ratna Shenoy
RespondentS.A. Prabhu and ors.
Appellant Advocate T. Aravindaksha Menon, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Rama Shenoi and; R. Raya Shenoi, Advs. and;State Prosecutor
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredSomasundsram v. Gopal
Excerpt:
- .....no interference. the question that arises for decision is whether a private complainant who had filed a list of witnesses under section 204(1a) could file a supplemental list of witnesses either giving up some of the witnesses mentioned in the original list or adding some not included in the first list the words 'remaining witnesses' in section 256(1) crl. p.c., do not refer only to those witnesses who were in the first list. they refer to witnesses who had not been examined or those whose names have not been disclosed in the list before charge was framed. support for this position can be had in the decision in somasundsram v. gopal, air 1958 mad 341. section 204(1a) only says that no action can be taken on a complaint unless the list of witnesses is filed but that would not.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P. Govinda Menon, J.

1. The order of the learned Magistrate is correct and calls for no interference. The question that arises for decision is whether a private complainant who had filed a list of witnesses under Section 204(1A) could file a supplemental list of witnesses either giving up some of the witnesses mentioned in the original list or adding some not included in the first list The words 'remaining witnesses' in Section 256(1) Crl. P.C., do not refer only to those witnesses who were in the first list. They refer to witnesses who had not been examined or those whose names have not been disclosed in the list before charge was framed. Support for this position can be had in the decision in Somasundsram v. Gopal, AIR 1958 Mad 341. Section 204(1A) only says that no action can be taken on a complaint unless the list of witnesses is filed But that would not disentitle the complainant from giving an additional list and the Court in issuing summons and examining them. I cannot agree with the view that the word 'remaining witnesses' involves only those that are left out from the first list It would be open to the learned Magistrate in examine witnesses and to admit any essential documents which the prosecution wishes to produce

2. The petition is devoid of merits and it is dismissed


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //