Suraj Mal Yadav vs Cbn Chittorgarh on 18 November, 2008

                                         1

S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.981/2008
SURAJ MAL YADAV V. CBN - CHITTORGARH.

DATE OF ORDER                     ::::                     18-11-2008

                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA


Mr. S.S.Shaktawat, for Petitioner (s).
Mr. N.K.Rai, Special PP for CBN.
Mr. O. P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.



      Petitioner accused facing trial for the offence under Section 8 read
with Section 18 of N.D.P.S.Act, requests that reversing order of Special
Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh dated 7.6.08, his application under
Section 311, Cr.P.C., for recalling PW 5 Omprakash for further cross-
examination be allowed.
      As per order, at advanced stage of the trial, an application under
Section 311, Cr.P.C., requesting recalling of PW 5 Omprakash for further
cross-examination in relation to ticket Ex.P-5 is rejected by the learned
Special Judge for the reasons mentioned in the order.
      Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per prosecution,
certain bus was checked and for a person alleged to have been found in
the bus, charge for the offence is - that bus checked     was of a named
travel agency - whereas ticket Ex.P-5 is of other named travel agency -
the ticket Ex.P-5 has over-writing/interpolation regarding number of seat
and travel agency is very relevant for proper defence of the accused - so
the application ought to have been allowed. Argued that for over-sight
like reasons or ignorance, this    particular   witness PW 5 is not cross-
examined on this point and recalling witness in such contingency is not
a filling in lacuna as is described by the learned Sessions Judge.
Submitted that recall of witness is necessary for just disposal of case.
      Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner
is in custody and quantum of sentence for alleged offence is very high.
      Learned Public Prosecutor, opposing stated that all the alleged
                                      2

facts,arguments and nature of cross-examination etc. are described by
the learned Judge and cross-examination on this point           was     and
application is rightly rejected.
       Considered arguments and also perused the order of the learned
trial Judge. For travel agency and over-writing/interpolation         cross-
examination (as observed by the learned Judge ) extensively is to PW 3,
PW 8 and some cross-examination to PW 5 (for travel agency). Further
minute probe is not warranted in this petition.
       Considering above, the petition is devoid of force. Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed.
                                                       (C. M. TOTLA), J.

scd