Jeevan Singh vs State Union Territory of Chandigarh

Ujagar Singh, J.

This case first information Report No. 402 dated 891966, under sections 307/34/120B of the Penal Code and sections 34 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 was registered at Police Station Central Chandigarh. During investigation of that case the petitioner said to have been interrogated and his statement under section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 1191986 was recorded, a copy of which has been produced with this petition as Annexure P. 1. To contest this petition, reply has been filed on behalf of the prosecution. It is stated therein that one of the accused, Balwinder Singh in the said case, was interrogated on 1091985 and it was disclosed by him that the conspiracy for committing some terrorist acts in Chandigarh on 8.9.1986 was hatched in the house of one Daljit Kaur at Patiala on 791986 and as a consequence of this disclosure Deputy Superintendent of Police Sudhir Chand went to Patiala on 1191936 and met the petitioner who Was interrogated.

The petitioner has approached this Court under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for deletion of his name from the list of witnesses in the said case. Along with the petition he has attached his own affidavit The relief is claimed on the ground that the petitioner was not aware of any facts of the case and that there was no question for him to make any statement concerning the case. He has further averred in the affidavit that the statement alleged to have been made by the petitioner was nothing but a concoction of false facts attributed to him. No Police Official ever came to the petitioner in relation to the case in question and as such, there was no point to make such statement, especially when the petitioner is not conversant with the factual position of the case in any manner, it is farther stated in the affidavit that on the basis of his alleged statement under section 161 of the Code the Police of Chandigarh was visiting the house of the petitioner so as to make a similar statement in a Court at Chandigarh and the petitioner has always shown his reluctance. to make such a statement. The Police has also threatened to implicate him in a false case.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. In my view there is no substance in the petition.

The prosecution is always at liberty to produce and examine any witness, according to its choice and it is not for the Court to Direct the prosecution to examine or not to examine any particular witness. Even if the witness happens to hostile the prosecution is always at liberty to produce and examine him on oath in Court and on his turning hostile the prosecution can always of its own make a request to the Court for allowing it to put him such questions, as are put in cross examination to a witness. The trial Court, while exercising its discretion whether to accept request of the prosecution or not, in the particular circumstances of a case may allow prosecution to cross examine such a witness. This is a matter for the trial Court to determine and that too, after such a witness is produced and examined This Court has not jurisdiction to interfere at this stage in the discretion of the prosecution. The provisions of Section 482 of the Code do not give any powers to this Court to give a direction to the prosecution for deleting the name of a particular witness from the list of witnesses. This petition is, therefore, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.