Chandra Prakash vs State Of Uttarakhand

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of the present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the order dated 14.11.2022, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Almora, by which the application no.57-क to re-examine PW1 and PW2 has been dismissed.

Facts in brief are that the first information report was registered by the police on 20.02.2021 with the averment that the police officials, namely, Sunil Kumar, Vijay Chandra and Manoj Kvira apprehended the present applicant-Chandra Prakash after he attempted to flee, discarding a bag. Inside the bag, they found 710 grams of Charas. Applicant admitted collecting of Charas from his property. Thereafter, Charas was seized and sealed. The arrest and seizure memo were prepared.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a young boy who was 21 years old at the time of incident. She also contends that from perusal of application no.57-क it is clear that the prosecution did not even file proper objections in writing to the said application. Furthermore, in a cyclostyle manner, prosecution wrote only three words i.e. “Ghor aapatti hai”.

It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the Sessions Judge did not deal with most important aspect of the present matter i.e. re-examination under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which is required to ascertain the place of incident. Furthermore, the application no.57-क was dismissed by learned Special Sessions Judge only on the premise that due to change of counsel, the present application has been preferred.

Per contra, learned State Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the application no. 57-क moved by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and submitted that in the entire application it has not been made clear by the applicant as to on which points the re-examination of PW1-S.I. Sunil Kumar and PW2- C.P. Vijay Chand was required. He further submits that the learned Special Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the application on the reasoning that PW1-S.I. Sunil Kumar was examined on 29.10.2021 on which date the defence counsel-Shri Bhola Shankar Joshi sought an adjournment for cross examining the said witness and the case was adjourned for 04.03.2022 on which date S.I. Sunil Kumar was cross-examined.

So far as PW2-C.P. Vijay Chand is concerned, the trial court observed in its order that on 23.04.2022 his evidence was recorded and he was cross-examined by the defence Advocate-Shri Bhola Shankar Joshi. The learned Special Sessions Judge also made it clear that in the application no. 57-क it has no where stated as to on which points the aforesaid witnesses were required to be re-examined. According, to the learned trial court, the defence has already been given full opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses, by mere change of the Advocate would not entitle the defence to recall and re-examine the already examined witnesses PW1 and PW2.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record as well as the order dated 14.11.2022, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to interfere in the matter. The reasons given by learned Special Sessions Judge are quite convincing and need no interference. Accordingly, the present C482 application fails and the same is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.