Crl.R No.2633 of 2009 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.R No.2633 of 2009
Date of Order: 5.11.2009
Rashid and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH,J (ORAL)
By filing the instant revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C,
petitioners have prayed for setting aside order dated 12.8.2009 passed by ld.
Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby an application under Section
311 Cr.P.C for re-cross-examination of witnesses PW1 Smt Krishna Wanti
and PW2 Smt Tarawanti has been dismissed.
Learned counsel submits that the aforementioned witnesses
were not properly cross examined due to the ngeligence of the counsel for
the petitioners and some facts were important for the decision of the case,
therefore, the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat has erred in dismissing the
application for recalling them and their re-cross examination.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no legal
infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. No
material has been placed on record to show that the aforesaid witnesses had
Crl.R No.2633 of 2009 #2#
not been properly cross examined by the counsel for the petitioners before
the trial Court. Not even a whisper has been made or anything suggested
with regard to the questions, which have been left out to be asked from the
aforesaid witnesses. Learned trial Court has, on examination of the record,
rightly recorded a finding that “I find that PW1 Krishnawanti and PW2
Tarwanti had been examined on 5.5.2009 and they have been well cross
examined by learned defence counsel. Therefore, I do not find any ground
to summon the witnesses for their re-cross examination as there is
apprehension of exerting pressure upon witnesses by the accused.
Moreover, the accused have not specified the questions which have been
left to be asked from the witnesses in absence of which permission sought
by accused to re-cross examine the witnesses can not be granted to them.”
Even otherwise, the impugned order being an interlocutory
order and in view of provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C,
learned counsel has not been able to show as to how the present revision
petition is maintainable.
Dismissed.
November 05, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE