Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Criminal Trial: P.W. Cross- Examined, Further Cross Examination Not Permissible, Specified Questions May Be Asked With Post Permission.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Jafar Vs. State Of U.P. & Another On 24/06/2008 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. 14221 OF 2008
CORAM : Hon'ble Raghunath Kishore Rastogi,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.
Court No. 45

Criminal Misc. Application No.14221 Of 2008
Jafar Vs State Of U.P. & Another.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi, J.

This Is An Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. To Quash The Order Dated 26.5.08 Passed By The Additional District And Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 5 Meerut In S.T. No. 39/01 State Vs. Jafar And Others Under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 368 I.P.C.
Since The Point Involved In This Application Is Legal One, I Am Deciding It At The Admission Stage On Merits After Hearing Learned Counsel For The Applicant As Well As Learned A.G.A. For The State.
The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Application Are That The Applicant Is An Accused In The Above Case Along With Other Co-accused Persons. Prosecution Evidence Has Been Recorded In The Above Case. Statements Of The Accused Have Also Been Recorded And Arguments Of Other Co-accused Except The Present Applicant Have Also Been Heard By The Court As Is Apparent From Its Order Dated 26.5.08.
The Accused-applicant Moved An Application 93 Kha Before The Court In Which He Made A Prayer For Re-summoning S.I. Samar Pal Singh (P.W.7), S.I. Jai Dev Arya (P.W. 8) And Mr. R.C. Kukraini (P.W. 9) Under Section 311 Cr. P.C. For Their Further Cross-examination. It Was Also Prayed That Dr. Atul Rastogi With The Record Of Chandra Sen Charitable Hospital Be Also Summoned In His Defence. The Presiding Officer Of The Court Rejected This Application. Aggrieved With That Order, The Accused Applicant Has Filed This Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
I Have Heard Learned Counsel For The Applicant As Well As Learned A.G.A. For The State. It Is To Be Seen That The Aforesaid Witnesses (P.W. 7, 8 & 9) Have Already Been Examined As Prosecution Witness, And The Accused Was Provided Opportunity To Cross-examine Them And That Opportunity Was Availed By Them. When A Witness Has Been Produced As Prosecution Witness, There Is No Question Of Summoning Him As A Court Witness Under Section 311 Cr. P.C. Hence, The Application, To Re-summon Them For Further Cross-examination As Court Witnesses, Is Misconceived.
It Is Also To Be Seen That The Accused Applicant Had Availed The Opportunity To Cross-examine The Above Witnesses And So He Was Not Entitled To Another Opportunity To Conduct Their Further Cross-examination. If The Applicant Was Of The View That Some Material Questions Which Were Essential For Just Decision Of The Case Could Not Be Asked In The Cross-examination, He Should Have Specified Those Questions In Verbatim And Then He Should Have Sought Permission To Put Those Questions To The Concerned Witnesses And Should Have Prayed For Recalling The Witnesses For Putting Those Questions Only And In That Case If The Court Is Of The View That Those Questions Are Relevant And Necessary For Just Decision Of The Case And If It Further Finds That Those Questions Had Not Been Put To The Witnesses In The Cross-examination, The Court May, In The Interest Of Justice, Permit The Applicant To Put Those Very Questions Only To A Witness Which Are Relevant And Necessary For Just Decision Of The Case In The Opinion Of The Court And Which Had Not Been Put Earlier To The Witnesses.
So Far As The Question Of Summoning Dr. Atul Rastogi And Record Of The Chandra Sen Charitable Hospital Regarding Admission And Treatment Of The Applicant Is Concerned, He May Summon That Doctor And The Concerned Record In His Defence And There Is No Justification For Summoning Him As A Court Witness.

The Position In This Way Is That The Order Passed By The Learned Presiding Officer Of The Court Below Rejecting The Application Under Section 311 Cr. P.C. Does Not Suffer From Any Illegality And So There Is No Force In This Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. And It Is Accordingly Dismissed. However, In Case The Applicant Moves A Fresh Application Specifying Those Questions In Verbatim Which Could Not Be Asked Earlier From The Concerned Witnesses (P.W. 7, P.W. 8 And P.W. 9) And Which Are, In His Opinion, Essential For Just Decision Of The Case, The Court Shall Consider The Same And Decide It On Merits After Providing Opportunity Of Heairng To Both The Parties. The Applicant May Also Produce Dr. Atul Rastogi And The Relevant Record Of Chandra Sen Charitable Hospital Regarding His Treatment In His Defence. He Shall Produce Them Within A Reasonable Time And Shall Not Seek Unnecessary Adjournment For This Purpose.
Subject To The Observations Made Above, The Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Is Hereby Dismissed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.
Court No. 45

Criminal Misc. Application No.14221 Of 2008
Jafar Vs State Of U.P. & Another.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi, J.

This Is An Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. To Quash The Order Dated 26.5.08 Passed By The Additional District And Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 5 Meerut In S.T. No. 39/01 State Vs. Jafar And Others Under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 368 I.P.C.
Since The Point Involved In This Application Is Legal One, I Am Deciding It At The Admission Stage On Merits After Hearing Learned Counsel For The Applicant As Well As Learned A.G.A. For The State.
The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Application Are That The Applicant Is An Accused In The Above Case Along With Other Co-accused Persons. Prosecution Evidence Has Been Recorded In The Above Case. Statements Of The Accused Have Also Been Recorded And Arguments Of Other Co-accused Except The Present Applicant Have Also Been Heard By The Court As Is Apparent From Its Order Dated 26.5.08.
The Accused-applicant Moved An Application 93 Kha Before The Court In Which He Made A Prayer For Re-summoning S.I. Samar Pal Singh (P.W.7), S.I. Jai Dev Arya (P.W. 8) And Mr. R.C. Kukraini (P.W. 9) Under Section 311 Cr. P.C. For Their Further Cross-examination. It Was Also Prayed That Dr. Atul Rastogi With The Record Of Chandra Sen Charitable Hospital Be Also Summoned In His Defence. The Presiding Officer Of The Court Rejected This Application. Aggrieved With That Order, The Accused Applicant Has Filed This Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
I Have Heard Learned Counsel For The Applicant As Well As Learned A.G.A. For The State. It Is To Be Seen That The Aforesaid Witnesses (P.W. 7, 8 & 9) Have Already Been Examined As Prosecution Witness, And The Accused Was Provided Opportunity To Cross-examine Them And That Opportunity Was Availed By Them. When A Witness Has Been Produced As Prosecution Witness, There Is No Question Of Summoning Him As A Court Witness Under Section 311 Cr. P.C. Hence, The Application, To Re-summon Them For Further Cross-examination As Court Witnesses, Is Misconceived.
It Is Also To Be Seen That The Accused Applicant Had Availed The Opportunity To Cross-examine The Above Witnesses And So He Was Not Entitled To Another Opportunity To Conduct Their Further Cross-examination. If The Applicant Was Of The View That Some Material Questions Which Were Essential For Just Decision Of The Case Could Not Be Asked In The Cross-examination, He Should Have Specified Those Questions In Verbatim And Then He Should Have Sought Permission To Put Those Questions To The Concerned Witnesses And Should Have Prayed For Recalling The Witnesses For Putting Those Questions Only And In That Case If The Court Is Of The View That Those Questions Are Relevant And Necessary For Just Decision Of The Case And If It Further Finds That Those Questions Had Not Been Put To The Witnesses In The Cross-examination, The Court May, In The Interest Of Justice, Permit The Applicant To Put Those Very Questions Only To A Witness Which Are Relevant And Necessary For Just Decision Of The Case In The Opinion Of The Court And Which Had Not Been Put Earlier To The Witnesses.
So Far As The Question Of Summoning Dr. Atul Rastogi And Record Of The Chandra Sen Charitable Hospital Regarding Admission And Treatment Of The Applicant Is Concerned, He May Summon That Doctor And The Concerned Record In His Defence And There Is No Justification For Summoning Him As A Court Witness.

The Position In This Way Is That The Order Passed By The Learned Presiding Officer Of The Court Below Rejecting The Application Under Section 311 Cr. P.C. Does Not Suffer From Any Illegality And So There Is No Force In This Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. And It Is Accordingly Dismissed. However, In Case The Applicant Moves A Fresh Application Specifying Those Questions In Verbatim Which Could Not Be Asked Earlier From The Concerned Witnesses (P.W. 7, P.W. 8 And P.W. 9) And Which Are, In His Opinion, Essential For Just Decision Of The Case, The Court Shall Consider The Same And Decide It On Merits After Providing Opportunity Of Heairng To Both The Parties. The Applicant May Also Produce Dr. Atul Rastogi And The Relevant Record Of Chandra Sen Charitable Hospital Regarding His Treatment In His Defence. He Shall Produce Them Within A Reasonable Time And Shall Not Seek Unnecessary Adjournment For This Purpose.
Subject To The Observations Made Above, The Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Is Hereby Dismissed.

Go to Navigation