Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Varinder Kumar vs State Of J&K; And Others on 29 November, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
Pet. u/s 561-A No. 215/2011
MP No. 240/2011
Date of order: 29.11.2017
Varinder Kumar vs. State of J&K
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Janak Raj Kotwal, Judge
Appearance:
For the appellant/petitioner(s) : None.
For the respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Padha, GA
No representation on behalf of the petitioner. There had been no representation on the previous two consecutive dates.
In this petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 28.03.2011, whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the petitioner's application under section 540 Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecution witnesses for the purpose of their cross- examination, briefly, on the ground that, the accused being poor and rather indigent person having no sufficient source of income could not engage any lawyer to represent him and conduct the trial of the case and therefore, the witnesses could not be cross examined. In dismissing the application, learned trial court has inter alia noticed that "the accused has originally engaged a counsel and subsequently, he opted for not availing the services of a lawyer with his free will and cross examined all the 561-A No. 215/2011 Page 1 of 2 witnesses himself." Learned trial court has observed in penultimate para of the impugned order, which is reproduced:
"The provision of providing lawyer is made for the needy accused persons having no means to bear the expenses of lawyer and not for the unscrupulous accused persons who deliberately do not ask for such services during the trial and at the fag end with the intention to defeat the whole process of trial resort to the motion as in the case at hand. If, such motions are allowed in the given facts and circumstances, it will open Pandora's box for the shrewd accused persons to invoke the provision at their whim with ulterior motives either to delay the trial or to fill up the gaps in the defence by re-examining the prosecution witnesses."
Having accorded consideration to the reasons recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order and the ground on which quashing thereof is sought, I am not persuaded to take a view that a case for showing indulgence is made out.
Viewed, thus, this petition is dismissed.
Record of the trial be remitted back alongwith a copy of this order.
(Janak Raj Kotwal) Judge Jammu:
29.11.2017 Angita 561-A No. 215/2011 Page 2 of 2