Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mamta Sehgal vs The State Of Haryana on 10 January, 2013
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CRM-M-531-2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-531-2013 (O&M).
Date of decision: January 10, 2013.
Mamta Sehgal
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT Mr.Praveen Hans, Adv., for the petitioner.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner Mamta Sehgal is facing trial for the offence under Sections 304-B and 302/34 IPC, along with her brothers Raj Kumar and Varun Sehgal. On 9.11.2012, she moved an application for adjournment when four witnesses of the prosecution namely Kundan Lal PW.1, Rishu PW.2, Anuj Arora PW.3 and Ankush Arora PW.4, were present for deposition in the Court. The petitioner had submitted in her application that she was represented by Sh.V.K.Upadhyaya, Advocate, from Delhi High Court and that on account of his pre-occupation in some other matter, he was not able to appear and cross-examine the witnesses on 9.11.2012. The trial Court had dismissed the application on 9.11.2012 on the ground that the application was a device to delay the proceedings to avoid the order passed by the High Court directing the trial Court to make 1 CRM-M-531-2013 (O&M) earnest endeavour to examine the complainant and the witnesses expeditiously. The trial Court also formed an opinion that the petitioner was earlier being represented by some counsel Mr.U.K.Lalit. It appears that the statements of above said four witnesses were recorded in chief and they were cross-examined at length by counsel for the co-accused of the petitioner Mr.U.K.Lalit.
So far as the petitioner is concerned, the trial Court while dismissing the application for adjournment of the petitioner recorded that opportunity was given to the petitioner but cross- examination was recorded as "NIL". Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it has been submitted that in order to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner should have been given an adjournment to cross-examine the witnesses and that she has been prejudiced for none of her faults.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application for adjournment and had rightly refused to postpone the proceedings in order to enable the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses on a subsequent date as her counsel from Delhi was not available.
When questioned as to how the prejudice has been caused to the petitioner when her co-accused have already availed the opportunity to cross-examine the four witnesses, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defence of the petitioner is 2 CRM-M-531-2013 (O&M) different from that of her brothers who are co-accused. It has been submitted that the petitioner has got separate defence to rebut the statutory legal presumptions under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and that she was required to make certain suggestions and also wants to produce separate defence evidence.
I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that prima facie no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner as counsel of the co-accused has already cross-examined the four witnesses. It is not out of place to observe here that the trial Court has got powers under Section 309 (2) Cr.P.C., to postpone or adjourn the proceedings/trial from time to time for reasons to be specifically recorded on such terms as it thinks fit for such time as it considers reasonable. As per Explanation 2 appended to Section 309 Cr.P.C., the terms on which an adjournment or postponement can be granted in appropriate cases would include the payment of costs by prosecution or accused.
Without expression of any opinion whether in the present case adjournment could have been granted on payment of reasonable costs to the witnesses by the petitioner-accused, this petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to file an application to resummon the witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The said application would be entertained by the trial Court only if the petitioner deposits costs of ` 20,000/- per prosecution 3 CRM-M-531-2013 (O&M) witness besides satisfying the Court that resummoning of the witnesses is essential for just decision of the case.
Dismissed with above said liberty.
(M.M.S. BEDI) January 10, 2012. JUDGE rka 4