Delhi District Court
Dr. V. K. Sehdev vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 15 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR:SPECIAL JUDGE2
NDPS ACT:(CENTRAL DISTRICT):TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
Decided on: 15.03.2017
CR No. : 40/17
In the matter of:
Dr. V. K. Sehdev
S/o Late Sh. R. K. Sehdev
C/o Sant Hospital, Main Burari Road,
Sant Nagar, Delhi 84 .....Petitioner
Versus
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
Through: The Public Prosecutor
At Tis Hazari Courts, Central - Delhi.
2. Appropriate Authority/Chief District Medical Officer
North Delhi,
Delhi Govt. Dispensary Building,
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi 07 .....Respondents
Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 1 of 13
JUDGMENT
By way of present petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 28.02.2017 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case no. 235G/14 as "Dr. Aruna Jainv. Dr. V. K. Sehdev & Ors.".
By way of impugned order, learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged CW1 Dr. Aruna Jain and while closing the evidence adjourned the matter for recording of statement of accused.
2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 28.02.2017 when crossexamination of CW1 Dr. Aruna Jain was being recorded qua Dr.V. K. Sehdevaccusedpetitioner, learned Metropolitan Magistrate disallowed four questions put by him to CW1 but those questions deserved to be allowed.
Another submission put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that CW1 was yet to be crossexamined Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 2 of 13 on other aspects but learned Metropolitan Magistrate closed the opportunity of the petitioner to further crossexamine CW1.
3 Perusal of statement of CW1 recorded on 28.02.2017 reveals that while disallowing questions put by learned counsel for the petitioner to CW1, learned Metropolitan Magistrate closed the opportunity of the petitioner to further crossexamine the witness. From the note recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it appears that learned counsel tendered unconditional apology and sought permission to further crossexamine the witness but request was turned having regard to the fact that the counsel continued to put irrelevant and repetitive question to the witness despite repeated request and warning by the Court. Further it was observed that in the given facts and circumstances, Court was left with no option but to close the opportunity to further crossexamine the Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 3 of 13 witness.
In this regard, when this Court has inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to on which aspects CW1 yet remains to be crossexamined, learned counsel has referred to revision petition wherein it has been alleged that CW1 remains to be further crossexamined on the point of inspection, raid, search, seizure, reasons, for suspension/cancellation of licenses of MTP Centre/PCPNDT Centre of Sant Hospital, Burari which took place on 31.07.2006 and onward.
Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any application before the Trial Court after his opportunity to further crossexamine CW1 was closed, specifying the questions which were yet to be put to CW1 by way of further crossexamination. Even in the revision petition, no such question has been specified which is required to be put by the petitioner to CW1 by way of crossexamination. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for petitioner submits Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 4 of 13 that he does not challenge the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 as regards closing of opportunity of the petitioner to further crossexamine CW1 and that the petitioner shall file appropriate application before the Trial Court in this regard specifying the aspects on which CW1 remains to be crossexamined.
In view of this submission, the revision petition is hereby dismissed, as not pressed, as regards closing of opportunity of the petitioner to further crossexamine CW1 vide order dated 28.02.2017.
4 As regards disallowing of four question put to CW1 by learned counsel for the petitioner during her cross examination, those questions and the observations made by learned Metropolitan Magistrate while disallowing the same read as under:
1. "Q. I put to you that there is no notification regarding appointment in your personal name?"
Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 5 of 13Court observation: The question is irrelevant as notification is always as per designation and not in name. Here the counsel is warned to ask the relevant questions.
2. "Q. I put to you that both the aforesaid officers were junior in Rank?"
Court observation: Question is
irrelevant and hence declined. The
counsel is again warned to ask the
relevant question and this is second
warning.
3. Q. I put to you after issuance of
show cause notice and before suspension and cancellation of the centres registered under MTP Act or under PC and PNDT Act.
Did you ever sought the advice or recommendations of the advisory committee during your tenure?
Court observation: Question is repetitive, general and very vague in nature and the counsel is warned last time not to ask irrelevant question.
4. Q. I put to you that did you call the meeting of advisory committee after inspection on 01.07.2006 or after show cause notice dated 25.07.2006."
Court observation: The question is repetitive and the witness already Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 6 of 13 stated in the crossexamination dated 20.02.2017 that he had no taken any opinion or sought any recommendation from the advisory committee and in the particular complaint case."
5 Learned Addl. PP representing the respondent submits that petition is not maintainable as regards this second submission of disallowing of four questions put forth by learned counsel for petitioner to CW1 is concerned as the order passed in this regard is interlocutory in nature.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to decision in State of Gujarat vs Ashulal Nanji Bisnol & Ors. 2002 (4) Crimes 47 to submit that petition is maintainable.
This Court has come across decision in State v Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru (2003) 6 SCC 641 by Hon'ble Apex Court wherein directions have been issued as a procedure to be followed by the Trial Courts whenever an objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material or Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 7 of 13 any item or evidence.
The procedure prescribed, reads as under: "Whenever an objection is raised during evidencetaking stage regarding the admissibility of an material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case( or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no legality in adopting such a course.
(However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed)"
Reference may also be made to decision in Irfan Badhshah v. State 2013 Cri LJ 3604, wherein decision in Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 8 of 13 Navjot Sandhi has been narrated and referred by Hon'ble High Court while dealing with the grievance of the petitioner as to the disallowing of two important questions as irrelevant during the crossexamination of PW22, ACP.
In Irfan Badshah's case (supra), Hon'ble Judge while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of Constitution of India, permitted the petitioner therein to crossexamination ACP on the two questions which were put to him before the Trial Court but were disallowed observing that same were irrelevant questions. Reference as also made to provisions of Section 148 of Indian Evidence Act.
In view of the above decision, it cannot be said that as regards the second submission I.e. challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court disallowing some questions, revision petition is not maintainable.Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 9 of 13
6 Herein, Court has gone through the four questions reproduced above and the allegations leveled against the accused - petitioner on the basis of criminal complaint filed by Dr. Aruna Jain alleging commission of offence under Section 23 of PC and PNDT Act 1994. The complaint is based on inspection dated 31.07.2006.
So far as question no. 1 is concerned, in the course of arguments, when Court has inquired from learned counsel for the petitioner if notification is issued by the name or referring to the designation of the officer concerned, learned counsel submits that notification is issued as per designation. In view of this submission, just now putforth by learned counsel for the petitioner, Court finds that question no. 1 was rightly disallowed by the Trial Court.
7 As regards Question no. 2 referred to above, it is significant to note that immediately before putting the said Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 10 of 13 question CW1 was specifically questioned if all the members of the inspection team were her subordinate. The said question was allowed and the witness denied that all the members of inspection team were subordinate to her. Then she explained that two members of the team were from the office of appropriate authority and remaining members were working with her in her office and that their designation was material of record. In view of this question and the answer given by CW1, learned Metropolitan Magistrate rightly rejected question no. 2 mentioned above.
8 As regards question no. 3, learned Metropolitan Magistrate disallowed the question while observing that it was repetitive, general and very vague in nature.
It is true that question was neither general nor vague but specific one. However, the same was rightly disallowed being repetitive as the witness had already replied to specific question that no advice from the Advisory Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 11 of 13 Committee was taken by her during her tenure, while issuing 8 notices under MTP Act out of which 73 let off and licenses of one centre was cancelled.
9 As regards question no. 4, learned Metropolitan Magistrate disallowed the same while observing that it was repetitive. Record reveals that CW1 had earlier specifically replied that no advice from the Advisory Committee was taken. Even otherwise, in the suchlike matters in case complainant is unable to prove compliance with any provisions with any of the prerequisite condition, law would take its own course. The witness was not confronted with any provision of law which required for calling of meeting of Advisory Committee after inspection dated 01.07.2006 and after show cause notice dated 25.06.2006. Therefore question deserved to be disallowed.
It may be mentioned here that while disallowing questions put up by learned counsel for the petitioner CW1, Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 12 of 13 Learned Metropolitan Magistrate at places recorded warning for learned counsel for the petitioner. In this regard, Court may observe that Learned Metropolitan Magistrate could substitute the word 'warning' with 'request' or 'directions' and avoid using word 'warning' for learned counsel.
10 In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the revision petition as regards disallowing the four questions by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the same is hereby dismissed. Trial court record be returned. File of revision petition be consigned to RecordRoom.
11 Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 24.3.2017.
Announced in the open Court on this 15th March, 2017 (NARINDER KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS02 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Dr. V. K. Sehdev V. State & Anr. CR No.40/17 Page 13 of 13