IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 3"" day of December, 2009
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMgs.+_f._'_
Criminal Petition 5712 /2009
Between:
Enteliigence Officer
Narcotics Control Bureau
South Zonal Unit
Chennai 600 090
(By Sri K N Mohan, Adv.)
And:
1
S Saravanan S/0 late Selva ran""
Pud a par: West, 'V':J'5'§.;a'ri amma n Koiiwstzreet
i<ee\_Vzhvel_urV Ta?u.k,"«Thi*r<uvaVyLJ_r District
Tarrm Nadu' ' "
Vijay Sihgn 5/d'ah'a.ga~w§a:n Singh
Pipaiial Mangfii wage', Fatak Mohalla
Pipaiia (Near Rly. Station)
"Mand5.oreA.Districtj"'E'v'i' P
" fa:~.cam».§a:;aa_r 'S./o Bhanwarilal
"~Vif.ia'ge"RozaVn:'1a, Tehsil Eaora
'o'istrict'R;s:h'am, M P
N2 Maihaiingam S/o iate Nataraj {Sounder
3/1,-Fatal' Road
At 'tt'u<.1Azunthamavadi Panchayat
* .._Nagapattnam District, T N
Respondents
.«{'By_Sri Hasmath Pasha, Adv.)
Vb?
Petitioner
Eu
This Criminai Petition is filed under 3482 of the Cr.PCV-"praying
to set aside the order dated 30.93.2009 and 15.10.2009..ei:'n,_iS.pi.C'
53/2005 by the Sessions Judge & Spi. Court for NDPS etc,
This Criminal Petition coming onmfor Orders-.ithissday, they
Court made the foiiowing:
ORDER
Sri Hasmath Pasha files memo”rof”iappearancei jhforjifiesoondentsw
accused.
Heard the counsei repre_se.ntiVngV__th_e pa’rtiVet:fV—
The themoirosecution is, three witnesses
have been zexaminediby;Vtrie_:iVi;:.rosecution. At the request of the
respondents’ counsei,crossjexamination of those witnesses has been
1..-“deferre:ti’3’«:byE _t:he__tria|hcou..rt..and the witnesses have to come from far
V’of_f’p,iaces m_ost._of them are retired, Securing their presence
once–afig-ain vtor«.”tbe’g:o’urpose of cross–examination works out hardship.
There are stili “seven more witnesses to be examined. If such an
.firo”i<amination is passed by the triai court,
_'tir_ne_Va'nd' again the witnesses cannot be secured and accordingiy,
ii"
Lu-J
iearned counsel has sought for setting aside the order passed by the
trial court deferring the cross examination of the witnessesxn_fl.._»l~.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that Lross
examination of CW5 8 to 13 is concerned, he_.wil_l”~-notfseek lbanygdv
adjournment or deferring the cross–e>;’aminaltion. b:ut–,._”to_ .mai’nta”in
consistency in the cross–examination of these.Vofficialv_*wi’tne’ssve:s;’–~on’lyu
to avoid inconvenience and to have ‘a._g”‘ood detense,ya’d}otirn’ment was
sought for to cross-examinegail the’se-.w’itn’e~sses atonceé ie., those
who have already been exarniried’s_aVsgPW”rei_ and there is no
malafides or an intenti’on tomag with._ttie’.matter and, accordingly
submitted[th%at”herf.woul’fdV’cross4e>{amiiw.e3:lVandlelyso conduct crossmexamination of the
other witnessesrafterVallthie witnesses have been examined .
Ern€’vie’w olithe suvbmiission made, I do not find any impropriety
I
int._thea’_ by the trial court directing the respondents
‘ counlsetto crosS_~examine at one point of time i.e., CW 1 to 7.
However, ..itis for the respondents’ counsel to facilitate conciuding the
rTiatte’r”«–as directed at the earliest without seeking for further
=d-efeijring for crossmexamination.
33>/l
An
Petition is disposed of accordingiy.