Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 208, 211, 212, 215

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 208 read with S. 215-Commitment proceeding- Quashment-Committing Magistrate declining to summon defence witnesses "for reasons recorded" and considering same unnecessary-Order, held, passed in proper exercise of jurisdiction under subsection (3) of S. 208, Cr. P. C. Mian and others v. King-Emperor A I R 1927 Pat. 243 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 211 & 212 Commitment proceeding-Witnesses, examination of Accused once choosing not to produce any evidence in defence in committing Court, Magistrate not bound to inquire again whether accused would like to submit list of witnesses and examine them in defence.   ORDER This application under section 215, Cr. P. C. seeks the quashment of the commitment order dated 14-12-1970 passed by Ch. Imtiaz. Ahmad Sadiq, Magistrate Ist Class, Jaranwala, District Lyallpur by which he committed the three accused to the Court of Session to stand trial for an offence under section 302/34 P. .P. C. for having murdered Muhammad Nawaz in furtherance of their common intention. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Ch. Aziz Ahmad Bajwa, the learned counsel for the petitioners, assailed the impugned order on the ground that it had been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of sections 208, 211 to 213. Cr. P. C. He contended that before the prosecution evidence was closed the petitioners had made an application before the learned Magistrate under section 208, Cr. P. C. that the witnesses of the prosecution, who had been Oven up, should be summoned in their defence but this application was rejected. He next contended that after the petitioners were charged it was the duty of the learned Magistrate to have asked the petitioners to submit the list of their witnesses and no sooner it was done than he should have considered whether he was to summon and examine those witnesses in defence as envisaged by section 212, Cr. P. C. The grievance is that the mandatory provisions of this section were violated and consequently for this and for the reasons mentioned earlier the impugned order is illegal and has to be set aside: The arguments in this case…