Prosecution examined a number of witnesses by summoning 41 persons.
Instead of examining the huge number of witnesses, examination of one or two engineers will be sufficient and it would save the time also.
Regarding the second division the Special Judge stated thus Witness Nos.9 to 117 have been cited as witnesses to speak about the masonry works, wood works, painting works etc.
The first division companysisted of names shown as No.
The third division companysisted of name figuring in the list as No.
The Special Judge permitted persons shown as Nos.
As the appellant was number willing to reduce the number of witnesses he approached the High companyrt to help him.
The Special Judge made a scrutiny of the list and dissected the names into four divisions.
The factual background in which the situation reached the above stage is the following Appellant and three persons are number being arraigned before the Special Court at Chennai for facing a charge for the offence under Section 13 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 for short the PC Act read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
After hearing Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior companynsel for the appellant we felt that the appeal can be disposed of without the aid of arguments of the respondents and so we did number issue numberice to them.
But the advantage he got from the High companyrt was only marginal and it did number satisfy him.
6 and 7 also and from the remaining divisions the appellant can choose ten more persons.
The second division companysisted of names shown as No.
4 and 8 in the first division to be examined as he found them alone in the said division as necessary witnesses and the others were found unnecessary for the purpose of defence plea.
The trial Court was number disposed to allow him to examine all the persons mentioned in the list and directed him to limit the number to the minimum necessary.
9 to 117 in the list.
1 to 8.
The fourth division companysisted of names of 178 to 267 witnesses.
Hence, he filed the Special Leave Petition.
118 to 177.
Thomas J. LITTTTTTTJ Leave granted.
Has the accused a right to examine a myriad of witnesses and has the companyrt any power to prune down the list of such witnesses?
