- (1.)The petitioner seeks for quashing the order passed by the Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. cases, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P. No. 165 of 1978 in C.C. No. 38 of 1975.
(2.)Previous to this petition, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 156 of 1978, when he entered upon the defence after the prosecution evidence was closed. In that petition he requested the Court to issue summons for the attendance of the 13 persons as defence witnesses mentioned in his petition. The learned Judge ordered for the issuance of summons on the condition of the petitioner depositing probable travelling allowance and dearness allowance permissible to the witnesses under the Rules within one week. Then the petitioner filed the petition Cr.M.P. No. 165 of 1978 explaining the pecuniary circumstances which prevented him from depositing the amount directed by the Court as per the orders mentioned above. In explaining the pecuniary circumstances under which he was placed, he submitted that he is being paid a meagre subsistance allowance of Rs. 200 per month which is hardly sufficient to meet even the necessities of his family consisting of himself, his wife and four children and eversince his suspension, he shifted his family to his native place Koduru one of the worst affected villages due to the recent cyclone in Divi Taluk. He also submitted that due to suspension, education of his children was adversely affected and he was not able to prosecute their studies. He also submitted that his wife is a sickly lady and her eyes were affected requiring medical treatment which he could not afford in the present days of misery. He, therefore, submitted that he is unable to deposit the expenses of the defence witnesses not only within the time specified in the order, but also he has no means nor capacity whatever to comply with the directions of the Court. He prayed the Court to issue summons to the witnesses without insisting upon the condition to deposit their expenses or else he will suffer irreparable loss. But the Court declined to modify the previous order and issue summons to the witnesses without insisting upon the condition to deposit their expenses. The order is to the following effect :-
"Heard. I do not see any reasons to review the order made by me earlier directing the accused to pay T.A. and D. A. for the defence witnesses cited by him. The petition is dismissed".

(3.)The order requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount to be paid towards T. A. and D.A. for the defence witnesses and the order dismissing the petition Cr.M.P. No. 165 of 1978 are sought to be quashed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.