Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 71 (RAJ)

Umesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-10

B.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment B. Prasad, J.-Heard. 2. This Misc. petition has been filed by the complainant against the order of the trial Court refusing to summon one witness Dr. P.P.S. Mathur PW. 14, who had already been examined. The application was moved on behalf of the complainant, petitioner before the trail Court to summon this witness again, for the reasons stated in the application filed by the complainant. 3. The learned trial Court rejected the application observing, inter alia, that when this witness was examined no necessity was pointed out. Had there being any ambiguity or there has any necessity of cross-examination, which was required to be made by the Public Prosecutor, the matter could have been brought to the notice of the Court then and there. The complainant could assist the learned Public Prosecutor for making such a prayer. 4. The learned Counsel for complainant had not moved application before the trial Court until 14.06.2004 while this witness was examined on 05.04.2004. No facts were narrated before the Court and no attention was drawn of the Court for necessity of re-examination of this witness on 05.04.2004 and immediately thereafter. On 14.06.2004, prosecution had examined its last witness Addl. S.P. Govind Narain. 5. After the last witness of the prosecution has been examined this application has been moved. According to the trial Court, this application has been moved to prolong the prosecution. The trial Court has observed in Paragraph 10 of its order that the Court has examined the statement of PW. 14 Dr. P.P. Mathur. He in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination has said nothing which requires his re-examination. 6. According to the trial Court, it has power under Section 311, CrPC for re-examination and it is within its discretion. The Court has though observed that the complainant has no locus standi to move an application. It is for the Court to examine the matter. The Court had examined and has found that there is no case for summoning this witness again for re-examination. The reasoning of the trial Court is sound enough. It is not liable to be challenged in a petition under Section 482, CrPC. The petition having no force is hereby dismissed. 7. It is for the Court to examine the matter. The Court had examined and has found that there is no case for summoning this witness again for re-examination. The reasoning of the trial Court is sound enough. It is not liable to be challenged in a petition under Section 482, CrPC. The petition having no force is hereby dismissed. 7. It may however be mentioned here that there was a technical point pointed out by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State was not a properly appointed P.P. on the relevant date. It is not necessary to go into the propriety of this question. The Court could consider the case if necessity was felt. The Court itself had examined the application and having exercised its jurisdiction, the question has become of academic importance.