Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1154 (PNJ)

Padam Singh v. State Of Haryana

2004-10-08

VINEY MITTAL

body2004
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated June 13, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby the request of the petitioners to cross-examine the two PWs, namely, Sukhpal and Brahma has been declined. In fact, three witnesses, namely, Naresh Kumar, Sukhpal and Brahma were produced by the prosecution. On June 13, 2003, the said witnesses were produced for cross-examination. However, the cross- examination of the aforesaid witnesses could not be conducted because the counsel for the petitioners made a request that she had been engaged that day and not prepared with the facts of the case. She prayed for an adjournment. Her request was declined and, as such, the learned trial Judge recorded that the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses was complete. 2. The CrI. Misc. No. 28426-M of 2003 was filed before this Court. This Court had taken note of the fact that the case was fixed for remaining prosecution evidence for October 31, 2003 and, therefore, had granted one opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the aforesaid PW Naresh Kumar. 3. A perusal of the order dated September 15, 2003 passed by this Court reveals that the contention had been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sukhpal and Brahma were yet to be produced by the prosecution on October 31, 2003 for cross-examination. It was in these circumstances that no directions with regard to permission to cross-examine the aforesaid two witnesses was granted by this Court. Later on, prosecution did not produce the aforesaid two witnesses, namely, Sukhpal and Brahma on the ground that even with regard to the aforesaid two witnesses their cross-examination stood completed, inasmuch as, on June 13, 2003 the aforesaid two witnesses had also been tendered for cross-examination when no cross-examination was conducted upon the aforesaid two witnesses. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the aforesaid contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of some mis-conception. 5. It is conceded position between the learned counsel for the parties that even the aforesaid two witnesses Sukhpal and Brahma had already been tendered for cross-examination and a similar order had been passed with regard to their cross-examinations, as had been passed for PW Naresh Kumar. 6. 5. It is conceded position between the learned counsel for the parties that even the aforesaid two witnesses Sukhpal and Brahma had already been tendered for cross-examination and a similar order had been passed with regard to their cross-examinations, as had been passed for PW Naresh Kumar. 6. Without entering any further into the aforesaid controversy, it is apparent that this Court vide order dated September 15, 2003 had permitted the fresh cross-examination of Naresh Kumar. Accordingly, it would meet the interest of justice if a similar opportunity is granted with regard to the aforesaid two witnesses Sukhpal and Brahma as well. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact, the present petition is allowed and the order dated April 28, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the prosecution is directed to produce the aforesaid two witnesses, namely, Sukhpal and Brahma on the next date of hearing fixed before the learned trial Judge or on any other date, which may be fixed by the learned trial judge. On the aforesaid date, the petitioners shall cross- examine the aforesaid two witnesses. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners fail to cross-examine the aforesaid two witnesses on the aforesaid date, then no further opportunity would be granted to them. 8. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 9. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.