Avtar Singh Vs State

Avtar Singh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 04, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/904619

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/904619
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mr. Hima Kohli, J.
Decided On: Aug 04, 2010
Case Number: CRL. M.C. 1326/2010
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Second Appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2001 in A.S.No.4 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Court, Nagapattinam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2000 in O.S.No.238 of 1998 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam.

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Avtar Singh

Advocate Mr. R.P. Luthra , Mr. Karan Jain, Mr. Rahul Singh , Ms. Aditi Sambhar, Advs.

Respondent

State

Advocate Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Adv.

Excerpt

second appeal under section 100 of civil procedure code, filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2001 in a.s.no.4 of 2001 on the file of additional district court, nagapattinam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2000 in o.s.no.238 of 1998 on the file of principal sub court, nagapattinam......the present application came to be filed by the petitioner on 09.04.2010, stating inter alia that the previous counsel had not cross- examined the said witnesses to bring out the defence of the petitioner.4. no doubt, the provisions of section 311 cr.pc empower the court to summon any person as a witness or re-examine/recall any person already examined at any stage of the trial, object being to bring on record the evidence not only from the point of view of the accused, but also from the point of view of the prosecution. considering the fact that final arguments have yet to be addressed in the matter and the counsel for the petitioner assures the court that he shall not delay the proceedings if one date is fixed for cross-examination of the two witnesses, i.e., pw1 & pw7, which he states shall be sufficient, the present petition is allowed. however, the petitioner is directed to pay costs of rs.10,000/-, out of which rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant before the date of hearing fixed before the learned asj and the remaining costs rs.5,000/- shall be deposited with the delhi high court legal services committee within one week from today.5. as the matter is stated to be listed before the learned asj on 16.08.2010, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court on the said date. on the said date, only one opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to cross-examine pw1 and pw7 by fixing a date in that regard. proof of payment/deposit of costs shall be shown to the concerned court on the aforesaid date.6. the petition is disposed of.7. a copy of this order shall be forwarded by the registry forthwith to the concerned court for perusal and compliance.

Full Judgment

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?

ORDER

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for setting aside an order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the learned ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, in FIR No.105/2004 lodged against the petitioner and another accused under Section 308/506(2)/34 IPC with Police Station: Mandawali.

2. By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.PC for recalling two prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Mukesh Kumar, the complainant and PW7 Rizwan, for cross- examination on his behalf was rejected. While passing the rejection order, the Court observed that the aforesaid witnesses had already been cross- examined on behalf of the accused persons by the counsel on 03.05.2009 and the application was silent as to the point left by the earlier counsel on which, further cross-examination of PW1 and PW7 was sought.

3. Counsel for the petitioner states that without going into any other issue as raised in the present petition pertaining to the authority of the previous counsel to cross-examine the said witnesses, one opportunity be granted to cross-examine PW1 and PW7 before arguments are addressed in the matter, as failure to do so will cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. Pertinently, PW1 was cross-examined on behalf of both the accused persons by a counsel on 03.05.2009 and PW7 was cross-examined on 12.10.2009. The present application came to be filed by the petitioner on 09.04.2010, stating inter alia that the previous counsel had not cross- examined the said witnesses to bring out the defence of the petitioner.

4. No doubt, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.PC empower the Court to summon any person as a witness or re-examine/recall any person already examined at any stage of the trial, object being to bring on record the evidence not only from the point of view of the accused, but also from the point of view of the prosecution. Considering the fact that final arguments have yet to be addressed in the matter and the counsel for the petitioner assures the Court that he shall not delay the proceedings if one date is fixed for cross-examination of the two witnesses, i.e., PW1 & PW7, which he states shall be sufficient, the present petition is allowed. However, the petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-, out of which Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant before the date of hearing fixed before the learned ASJ and the remaining costs Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week from today.

5. As the matter is stated to be listed before the learned ASJ on 16.08.2010, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court on the said date. On the said date, only one opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to cross-examine PW1 and PW7 by fixing a date in that regard. Proof of payment/deposit of costs shall be shown to the concerned Court on the aforesaid date.

6. The petition is disposed of.

7. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry forthwith to the concerned Court for perusal and compliance.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2010 Same Parties Avtar Singh vs State Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Mr. Hima Kohli, J.

Land Acquisition