Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/735/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 735 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
MER
ARJANBHAI RANMALBHAI ADEDARA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KP RAVAL, APP for Applicant(s) : 1,
DHARMESH D NANAVATY for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 24/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocates for the parties. State has challenged an order
dated 28.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Junagadh. By the said order below Exh.161 application in Sessions
Case No.58/2006, following directions are given.
The
application at Exh.161 is partly allowed.
The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri D.r. Karkar is permitted
to cross the witness Shri L.V. Saraiya who is examined on oath at
Exh.155 on the limited point of the documents produced by the
learned advocate of the accused Nos.1 and 2 obtained by way of
interest about the elements of the Aluminum Phosphate and the
procedure of the Aluminum Phosphate consumed by the person by mouth
only.
The
learned APP is hereby restrained not to cross-examine the said
witness on the point as to how he has prepared the analysis reports
produced vide Exhs.132 and 143 as the said point was raised by the
learned advocate of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, this Court has
already called for the witness i.e. Scientific
officer Shri Saraiya that how he has prepared and produced the said
documents and on referring the said analysis reports vide Exhs.132
and 143, there is no description about the method adopted by Shri
Saraiya that how he has examined and prepared the said documents.
2. State
is aggrieved by the directions contained in para 3 of the said order.
Learned APP for the State submitted that it would be necessary to
question the witness on the manner and method of preparation of the
report and the learned Judge ought not to have put such restrictions.
On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents original
accused stated that he has no objection if the said direction is set
aside, however, if the State brings any further evidence through this
witness, the accused must also have opportunity to carry out further
cross-examination.
3. Having
thus heard learned advocates for the parties, I find that such
blanket restriction as contained in para 3 of the order was not
justified. If any particular individual question was found
impermissible by the Court on any ground, the same could have been
dealt with, however, while granting the said request for further
questioning a witness, such restriction ought not to have been
imposed. In the result, the impugned order limited to para 3 of the
operative portion is set aside. Needless to say, the accused would
have all rights to defend themselves and if need be, carry out
further cross-examination of the witnesses. Direct service is
permitted.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
menon
Top