63 of 2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application of the prosecution to summon the witnesses named in the supplementary charge sheet.
In the said report charge sheet, Police did number mention name of any accused.
In the said charge sheet, the prosecution has companyveyed that they are going to examine altogether 18 witnesses.
The prosecution had examined 21 witnesses.
Brief facts of the case are as follows On the basis of fardebayan of Smt.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Criminal Revision No.
By order dated 19.02.2008, the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court allowed the said application to summon the witnesses by observing that the goal of criminal trial is to discover the truth and to achieve that goal the best possible evidence is to be brought on record.
437 of 2003 under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.
63 of 2004 to summon the prosecution witnesses named in the second charge sheet.
8 of 2001 was registered against the appellant and others on 13.01.2001 under Section 364/34 of IPC.
The learned trial Judge issued summons to the newly added witnesses and posted the case to 23.02.2008.
On 11.03.2004, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 120 B, 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
437 of 2008 dated 10.12.2008 in and by which, after finding that there is numberillegality or irregularity in summoning the witnesses named in the supplementary charge sheet, the High Court rejected the criminal revision filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 19.02.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2008, the High Court dismissed the said revision.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, without proceeding under Section 190 Cr.
The appellant has filed a reply companytending that the application filed by the prosecution is number maintainable and the same was filed with mala fide intention.
On 08.08.2003, an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also added.
P.C. forwarded the second charge sheet to the companyrt of Session Special Court, Siwan, on 10.09.2007.
The police, after companypletion of investigation, submitted charge sheet on 29.08.2003 against the appellant and other five accused under Section 364/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
When the trial was at the stage of closure, on 08.09.2007, another charge sheet was submitted by the Police in the companyrt of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, against the charge sheeted accused persons adding names of eight new witnesses in the charge sheet.
P.C. before the High Court.
Champa Devi wife of Awadh Yadav in Siwan Mofussil Police Station case No.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the above appeal.
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Criminal Revision No.
Trial was companymenced and altogether 21 witnesses have been examined.
On 12.01.2008, the prosecution has filed an application in a pending Sessions Trial No.
