Delhi District Court
Rajesh @ Raju & Ors vs State on 20 July, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.NARINDER KUMAR:SPECIAL JUDGE2
NDPS ACT:(CENTRAL DISTRICT):TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. 517/ 2018
Date of institution: 19.07.2018 Decided on: 20.07.2018
In the matter of :
Rajesh @ Raju & Ors.
.....Petitioner
Versus
State
.....Respondent
JUDGMENT
In the above mentioned revision petition, filed on 18.07.2018 challenging order dated 17.03.2018 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR NO.287/05, Police Station Subzi Mandi, application u/s 5 of Limitation 2 Act has been filed with prayer for condonation of delay, on the ground that after receipt of copy of impugned order, revision petition was prepared on or about 7.4.2018, but due to repairs going on in the chamber of Counsel for petitioners, file got misplaced, and as such delay occurred in its filing.
2. File reveals that the affidavits of the petitioners/applicants are lying attached to the petition. These were got attested on 9.4.18. However, Learned Counsel for petitionersapplicants has not filed his affidavit in support of the fact that during repairs and maintenance of his chamber, file of revision petition was misplaced or that it was traced out subsequently.
Since, in the course of arguments, arguments have already been advanced on merits, in the interest of justice, court proceeds to decide the petition on merits.
Vide impugned order, two applications filed by 3 the petitionersaccused before Learned Trial court came to be dismissed. One application was under section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling of PW4 Raju, whereas other application was for narcopolygraphy test of the accusedpetitioners.
3. Record reveals that the accused persons have been facing trial for an offence u/s 325 read with section 34 IPC for causing grievous injuries on the person of one Raju. Case was registered on 31.07.2005. It is significant to note that no such application was filed by any of the petitioners to undergo narco or polygraphy test during investigation. On conclusion of investigation, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was ready on 14.3.2006. Challan was filed in court on 16.3.2007.
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor rightly submits that at this stage, when the case is pending for defence evidence, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application, while observing that it would not 4 be appropriate to issue such directions at this stage.
4. So far as the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C to recall PW4 Raju is concerned, record reveals that the witness was examined in court on 11.03.15 I.e. about more than three and half years back. He was thoroughly subjected to cross examination on behalf of the three accusedpetitioners. Arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for petitioner is that counsel earlier engaged by them did not cross examine the witness on some of the aspects. When the accused persons had engaged a counsel, who thoroughly cross examined the witness, engagement of new Counsel is no ground to permit them for recalling a witness examined about three and half years back.
5. File reveals that Smt. Nand Rani, mother of PW4 Raju was examined in chief on 4.9.12. Applications were filed on 12.04.2017 and 15.09.17, u/s 311 Cr.P.C for 5 recalling her for cross examination. There is nothing on record to suggest as to why no application u/s 311 Cr.P.C was filed prior to 17.3.2018 for recalling of PW4 Raju who had already been examined and cross examined on 1.3.15.
6. Keeping in view all this, when the case is pending for defence evidence while four DWs have already been examined, court does not find any merit in this petition. Same is hereby dismissed.
Trial Court Record be returned for being laid down before Trial Court on 21.07.2018 at 2:00 p.m. Copy of Judgment be sent to Trial Court. File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by NARINDER NARINDER KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2018.07.21
Announced in the open Court 14:49:55 +0530
on this 20th day of July, 2018 (NARINDER KUMAR)
SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS02 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI