AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manmohan, J.—Present criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 17th January, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the respondent''s counsel was permitted to cross-examine an eyewitness i.e. PW1 Satpal once more subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. The admitted position is that PW1 Satpal was examined on 22nd November, 2010 and thereafter on 24th November, 2010, 26th November, 2010 and lastly on 18th February, 2011.
It is pertinent to mention that on 13th January, 2011, the then Additional Sessions Judge trying the present case had made it clear that as PW1 Satpal''s life was under threat, the defence counsel would be permitted to further cross-examine the said witness only on one date and no other opportunity would be granted to him.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order is not only contrary to the earlier order dated 13th January, 2011, but has been passed as if the subsequent Additional Sessions Judge was sitting in appeal over the earlier order.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent states that as the eyewitness PW1 Satpal had not been effectively cross-examined, the trial Court committed no error in granting an opportunity to the defence counsel to further cross-examine the PW1 Satpal and that too on payment of costs.
Having heard the parties at length, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.2-accused had been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the eyewitness PW1 Satpal. In fact, a perusal of the paper book reveals that PW1 Satpal was extensively cross-examined by all the accused including the respondent No.2.
The Supreme Court in Nisar Khan @ Guddu and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal, has held, Naturally, by the time the eyewitnesses were recalled, they were won over either by money, by muscle power, by threats or intimidation. We are of the view that no reasonable person properly instructed in law would allow an application filed by the accused to recall the eyewitnesses after a lapse of more than one year that too after the witnesses were examined, cross--examined and discharged.
(emphasis supplied).
This Court is of the view that the aforesaid mandate of law is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case.
Moreover, in view of the order dated 13th January, 2011, the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in allowing another opportunity to respondent No.2 to cross-examine PW1 Satpal.
Accordingly, the order dated 17January, 2012 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed ahead with the matter. The costs of Rs.10,000/-deposited by the respondent shall be refunded to the learned counsel for respondent against a receipt. With the aforesaid observations, present petition and pending application stand disposed of.