Allahabad High Court
Satnam Singh And Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 21 September, 2010
Author: S.C. Agarwal
Bench: S.C. Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4015 of 2010 Petitioner :- Satnam Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Chaubey,R.K. S. Chauhan Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.
No notice is issued to private respondent in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private respondent to apply for variation or modification of this order, if he feels so aggrieved.
This revision is directed against the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 1, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 589 of 2003, State Vs. Satnam and others, under section 302 and 307 IPC, whereby the application 53-B for recalling the order dated 9.4.2010 closing the opportunity of cross examination of PW-2- Kashmir Singh was rejected.
The facts are that PW-2 Kashmir Singh was cross examined partly on 24.11.06. Subsequently, he did not appear for cross examination and went abroad and thereafter, Kashmir Singh appeared in the court on 19.4.2010.
Learned counsel for the revisionists made a statement before the court that he would cross examine the witness after lunch. When the case was taken up after lunch, the counsel for the accused did not turn up up to 2.20 pm and thereafter, the opportunity for cross examination was closed. The application 53-B for recalling the order dated 19.4.2010 was rejected, hence this revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the accused persons cannot be held responsible for the fact that the witness appeared after four years for cross examination. On the date on which PW-2 appeared for cross examination, learned counsel for the defence was busy in some other court and unfortunately, he could not reach the trial court by 2.20 p.m. and for this reason, the opportunity for cross examination of PW.-2 should not have been closed by the trial court.
It is further submitted that when the application for recall of PW-2 for further cross examination was filed, the same should not have been rejected by the trial judge. In a case under section 302 IPC, the rights of the accused should not have been fore- closed by passing such a harsh order.
Learned AGA supported the impugned order.
On the date on which PW-2 appeared for cross examination, the counsel for accused could not appear in the court and therefore, opportunity of cross examination was closed by the trial court. When the application for recalling PW-2 for cross examination was moved, learned trial court should have recalled PW-2 for cross examination and should not have closed opportunity of cross examination on technical and frivolous grounds. Cross examination is a valuable right given to the accused to elicit the truth and cannot be fore-closed for the fault of the counsel. There is no need repeating that no one should be condemned unheard which may amount to grave miscarriage of justice.
In these circumstances, I find that impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
The revision is allowed.
The impugned order dated 21.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 1 is set aside and learned Judge is directed to provide an opportunity to the accused persons for cross examination of PW-2, Kashmir Singh.
I may also remind the trial court that though the Fast Track Courts are meant to dispose off Sessions Trial at a quick pace but it does not mean that procedure of trial should be short circuited. More often, a short-cut sometimes becomes a long-cut.
Order Date :- 21.9.2010 Gss