Mukesh and Another Vs. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1160812
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-07-2014
AppellantMukesh and Another
Excerpt:
crm no.m-26745 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-26745 of 2014 date of decision:- 07.08.2014. mukesh and another ......petitioners versus state of haryana and others .......respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.gaurav mohunta, advocate for the petitioners.**** sabina, j. petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 22.05.2014 (annexure p-3).whereby, application moved by the petitioner under section 311 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short (cr.p.c.') for recalling pw-4 bhup singh and pw-6 rajesh for further cross-examination, was dismissed. learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court had allowed the application for summoning the call details of the mobile phones of the petitioners vide order dated 09.07.2014. the said matter is now listed for 24.09.2014. the call details were very necessary to be put to pw-4 and pw-6. sandeep sethi201408.11 17:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm no.m-26745 of 2014 -2- section 311 of the cr.p.c.reads as under:- power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. thus, as per the above provision, trial court has ample power to recall a witness, if it is necessary in the interest of justice. in the present case, pw-4 bhup singh and pw-6 rajesh have been duly cross-examined by the defence counsel. it has been noticed by the trial court that now with the change of defence counsel, the application has been moved for further cross- examination of the said witnesses. the reasons given by the trial court while dismissing the application are sound reasons. hence, no ground for interference is made out. dismissed. (sabina) judge august 07, 2014. sandeep sethi sandeep sethi201408.11 17:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CRM No.M-26745 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-26745 of 2014 Date of decision:- 07.08.2014.

Mukesh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioneRs.**** SABINA, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 22.05.2014 (Annexure P-3).whereby, application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short (Cr.P.C.') for recalling PW-4 Bhup Singh and PW-6 Rajesh for further cross-examination, was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court had allowed the application for summoning the call details of the mobile phones of the petitioners vide order dated 09.07.2014.

The said matter is now listed for 24.09.2014.

The call details were very necessary to be put to PW-4 and PW-6.

SANDEEP SETHI201408.11 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-26745 of 2014 -2- Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.reads as under:- Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

Thus, as per the above provision, trial Court has ample power to recall a witness, if it is necessary in the interest of justice.

In the present case, PW-4 Bhup Singh and PW-6 Rajesh have been duly cross-examined by the defence counsel.

It has been noticed by the trial court that now with the change of defence counsel, the application has been moved for further cross- examination of the said witnesses.

The reasons given by the trial court while dismissing the application are sound reasons.

Hence, no ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE August 07, 2014.

sandeep sethi SANDEEP SETHI201408.11 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document