Geetanjali Gupta vs State of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Cr. M.P. No. 1201 of 2018

The prayer made in the application is allowed. The applicant is arrayed as party respondent No. 2, in, the instant petition.

Cr. MMo No. 94 of 2018

The accused is facing charge for his allegedly committing offences, punishable under Section(s) 279, 337, 338 and Section 304-A of the Indian Penal

Code. In proof of the charge, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses. After the learned APP concerned, hence examining the aforesaid number

of prosecution witnesses, she made a statement before the learned trial Judge, qua hers closing the prosecution evidence. However, subsequent

thereto, the learned APP concerned, moved an application, cast under the provisions of Section 311 Cr. P.C., wherein, hence leave of the Court, was

asked, for examining, one, Chain Singh, as a prosecution witness. Upon the aforesaid application, the learned trial Judge, accorded the apt relief, to the

prosecution. The accused is aggrieved therefrom, hence has proceeded, to, impugn the verdict pronounced thereon, by the learned trial Judge.

The witness concerned, namely Chain Singh, was cited as a prosecution witness, and, after the examination, of, an ocular witness to the

occurrence, and, who had rendered a testification in corroboration, to, the genesis of the prosecution case, the then APP, on 1.6.2015, made a

statement, qua the recording of deposition of Chain Singh, being repetitive in nature, hence the aforesaid witness, was, asked to be given up. The

learned trial Judge, in concurrence therewith, pronounced an apt order thereon.

The order made by the learned trial Judge, in consonance with the statement, as, made therebefore, by the learned APP concerned, has acquired

finality and conclusivity, and was un-reviewable, even by the prosecution, by the latter, hence, thereafter proceeding, to cast an application, under

Section 311 Cr. P.C. Even otherwise, the statement made on behalf of the prosecution, by the then APP, is, throughout binding upon the prosecution,

and, it was not appropriate, for the apt successor-in-office, to make strivings, for, either reviewing the earlier statement made by the apt predecessor-

in-office, importantly, when hence the learned trial Judge, had earlier made a conclusive binding, and, un-reviewable order, vis-Ã -vis Chain Singh,

being an un-necessary witness, given his testification being repetitive, in nature.

In view of the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned order, of 28.11.2017, pronounced by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, is quashed and set aside. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No