Delhi District Court
Sh. Sanjay Garg vs Smt. Padmawati on 10 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD GOEL, DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Sh. Sanjay Garg
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Garg,
R/o 1/5542, Govind Marg,
Balbir Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi110032. ....Revisionist
Versus
1. Smt. Padmawati
W/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Garg,
R/o Flat No.G1, Plot No.J4/2,
Dwarka Apartment, West Jyoti Nagar,
Delhi110094.
2. Sh. Mukesh Garg
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Garg,
R/o 1/7212, Ist Floor, Gali No.1,
Shivaji Park, Shahdara,
Delhi110032.
3. Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Garg,
R/o Flat No.G1, Plot No.J4/2,
Dwarka Apartment, West Jyoti Nagar,
Delhi110094. ....Respondents
C.R. No. : 04/14
PS : Shahdara
U/s : 397 Cr.PC
CC No. : 111/13
Sanjay Garg vs. Padmawati & Ors.
C.R. No. 04/14
Dated : 10.03.2014 Page no. 1 of 6
Date of institution : 08.01.2014
Date of Arguments : 04.03.2014
Date of Order : 10.03.2014
Revision petition under Section 397 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the order dated
11.12.2013 passed by the court of Ld. C.M.M.,
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in CC No.
111/13 whereby Revisionist/accused was refused
adjournment to crossexamine the
respondent's /complainant's witnesses
JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi, whereby request of the Ld. Proxy Counsel for the revisionist/accused for a passover till 2.00 P.M. to enable the Ld. Counsel to cross examine PW1 Smt.Padmawati, PW2 Sh. Mukesh Garg and PW3 Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg was declined, revisional jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by the revisionist/accused u/s 397 r/w S. 399 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code").
Sanjay Garg vs. Padmawati & Ors.
C.R. No. 04/14
Dated : 10.03.2014 Page no. 2 of 6
2. The brief facts for disposal of this revision petition are that revisionist was summoned by the court of Ld. ACMM vide order dated 11.9.2012 on the complaint of the respondents u/s 420/448 IPC and the case was listed for precharge evidence before the trial court on 11.12.2013 when three witnesses PW1 Smt.Padmawati, PW2 Sh. Mukesh Garg and PW3 Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg were present, and on behalf of accused/revisionist, proxy counsel sought adjournment on the ground of sickness of the counsel and the request was declined and then the Ld. Proxy Counsel sought a passover till 2 P.M. for cross examination by the main counsel and the court observed that the complainant is an old lady and the court could not wait till lunch as other matters are pending and all the three witnesses were examined.
3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist and the respondents and very carefully perused the material available on the record.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist on the ground that the complainant no.1 is a senior citizen and the efforts are being made by the revisionist/accused to prolong the matter. The record of the Ld. Trial Sanjay Garg vs. Padmawati & Ors.
C.R. No. 04/14
Dated : 10.03.2014 Page no. 3 of 6 Court reveal that on 29.5.2013, the matter was adjourned to 26.8.2013 for precharge evidence and on 26.8.23013 the accused submitted that he has filed a quashing petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on which notice has been issued to the complainant and the Ld. Trial Court adjourned the matter for precharge evidence for 11.12.2013. On the adjourned date of hearing, three PWs were present and request for adjournment was declined and even passover till 2.00 P.M. was declined for crossexamination of the witnesses.
5. It is well settled law that discovery of the truth is the essential purpose of any trial or enquiry as observed by a three bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria through LRs 2012 (3) SCALE 550, the timely reminder of that solemn duty was given in the following words: "What people expect is that the Court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice."
Sanjay Garg vs. Padmawati & Ors.
C.R. No. 04/14
Dated : 10.03.2014 Page no. 4 of 6
6. It is also settled law that fairness of the trial is a virtue that is sacrosanct in our judicial system and no price is too heavy to protect that virtue. A possible prejudice to prosecution is not even a price, leave alone one that would justify denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself. This is so held recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. The State of A.P., 2012 STPL (Web) 329 SC.
7. Keeping in view the fact that three PWs were examined for the first time by the complainant on 11.12.2013 when the impugned order was passed, and in view of the above said observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes (supra) & P. Sanjeeva Rao (Supra), I allow this revision petition and set aside the order of the Ld. Trial Court by which the accused was denied opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses of the complainant and it is directed that the Ld. Trial Court shall afford an opportunity to cross examine the said three witness namely PW1 Smt. Padmawati, PW2 Sh. Mukesh Garg and PW3 Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg by the Revisionist/accused subject to payment of Rs.3,000/ as cost. Revision Sanjay Garg vs. Padmawati & Ors.
C.R. No. 04/14
Dated : 10.03.2014 Page no. 5 of 6 petition is disposed off accordingly. TCR be sent with copy of this order and revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on 10th March, 2014 (Vinod Goel)
District & Sessions Judge,
Shahdara, KKD Courts/Delhi.
Sanjay Garg vs. Padmawati & Ors.
C.R. No. 04/14
Dated : 10.03.2014 Page no. 6 of 6