Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Devi Prasad Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2015

                               M.Cr.C.No.19621             of 2014




                                                                              1




31/07/2015
                   Shri Mohan Singh Patel, Advocate for the applicants.
                   Shri    S.K.      Kashyap,   standing   counsel   for   the
             respondent/EOW.

Heard on admission as well as I.A.No.23915/2015, an application for stay.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 05/11/2014 passed by learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.161/2014 affirming the order dated 22/04/2014 of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur by which an application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for cross-examining prosecution witness OM Prakash Patel (PW/9) by the applicants has been dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the documents available on record and document No. 2551 filed today, I am of the opinion that this petition does not deserves to be admitted.

It is apparent from the record that witness OM Prakash Patel (PW/9) was entered into witness box on 04/3/2005 and on that day after his examination in chief, he was cross- examined by other co-accused persons, but on the request of the applicants that their counsel is not available, the matter was adjourned by learned trial Court with the direction which reads as under:

"izfrifj{k.k }kjk nsoh izlkn fo'odekZ ,oa Jhyky frokjh vfHk;qDr Lo;a%& 18 mijksDr gh nksuks vkjksihx.kksa ds }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k fd vkt muds vf/k0 izfrijh{k.k djus gsrq muds lkFk U;k;k0 esa ugha vk;s blfy;s dy rd dk le; fn;k tk;A mudk fuosnu bl funsZ'k ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd dy Bhd U;k;ky;hu le; esa mi0 jgsa vkSj ;fn vkjksihx.k dh vksj ls iSjoh djus okys orZeku vf/koDrk u mifLFkr gksa] rks vkjksihx.k vius lkFk fd;k vU; vf/koDrk dks ysdj vk;saA"

It is crystal clear that learned trial Court given appropriate opportunity for cross-examination of witness OM Prakash Patel (PW/9) on behalf of the applicants, though the case was fixed for next day, but some or how, the adjournment was prolonged upto two months. On 03.05.2015, when the applicants were asked to cross-examine witness OM Prakash Patel (PW/9) , who was present on that day and learned trial Court discharged witness OM Prakash Patel (PW/9) on the submission of the applicant which reads as under:-

"vkjksih nsoh izlkn fo'odekZ ,oa Jh yky frokjh ds }kjk crk;k x;k fd mUgsa viuh vksj ls fdlh vf/k0 dks fu;qDr ugha djuk gS vkSj u gh os mifLFkr lk{kh vkse izdk'k iVSy dk dksbZ izfrijh{k.k djuk pkgrs A vkjksihx.k dh mijksDr vfHkO;fDr dks Lohdkj djrs gS A lk{kh vkse izdk'k iVSy dks eqDr fd;k x;k A "

In above facts and circumstances, it is also clear that on the submission made by the applicants, their right to cross- examine was closed and witness Om Prakash Patel (PW/9) was discharged. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed in limine.

(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE SJ