Delhi District Court
Surender Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 December, 2024
DLSH010068412024 Page 1 of 17
CR No.227/24
Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi &
Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 224/2024
In the matter of :-
Surender Singh
S/o. Sh. Lal Singh
R/o. A-3/308, East Gokal Pur,
Shahdara, Delhi-110094
..... Revisionist/Accused
(Sh. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. The State of (NCT) Delhi
............Respondent No.1
(Sh. Jitendra Sharma, Addl. PP for the State)
2. Devender Singh Negi
S/o. Sh. Pan Singh Negi
R/o. H.No.15/32, Kidwai Gali,
Near Shiv Mandir, East Babar Pur,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
..... Respondent No.2/
complainant
(Sh. Arun Sharma, Advocate)
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 / 399
CR.P.C
Date of institution : 05.11.2024
Date when judgment reserved : 24.12.2024
Date of Judgment : 24.12.2024
JUDGMENT:-
1. The present revision petition is filed against order dated DLSH010068412024 Page 2 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar 25.09.2024, by which application of the revisionist u/s.311 Cr.P.C., seeking recall of complainant for further cross- examination (in addition to the cross-examination dated 10.01.2024) was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court.
2. Perusal of the record reveals that the complaint case u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) was first taken up by the Court on 02.02.2022 and after summoning of the accused / revisionist, notice was framed u/s.251 Cr.P.C. on 19.05.2023, wherein the accused / revisionist admitted his signatures on the cheque and took the defence that he had already returned the entire amount of loan taken by him from the complainant / R2 and that at the time of taking of the loan, he had given two cheques as security and that the complainant / R2 did not return the cheques despite receiving the entire loan amount. He stated in his defence that the said security cheques were misused by the complainant / R2 and the complainant / R2 filed a fabricated case against him. The Ld. Trial Court in the order-sheet dated 19.05.2023 noted that the case shall be tried as a summons trial and listed the matter for complainant's evidence on 19.07.2023. On 19.07.2023, none appeared for the complainant / R2 and the matter was posted for 13.10.2023. On 13.10.2023, the accused / revisionist was absent, therefore, his warrants were issued and therefore, the matter was listed for 10.01.2024. On 10.01.2024, the warrants of the accused were cancelled and on the same day, the complainant / R2 was also cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused / revisionist namely Sh. Javed Khan. The said cross-examination DLSH010068412024 Page 3 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar is reproduced as under :
"XXXXX by Sh. Javed Khan, Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have known to the accused for the past 6-7 years. No agreement was made regarding the money advanced to the accused. I had arranged the money advanced to the accused from my friends. No agreement was executed between me and my friends. It is wrong to suggest that the writing on the cheque in question is mine. I file ITR. I am not in the business of money lending and the advancement to the accused was the first advancement ever made by me. It is wrong to suggest that accused has returned all my money. It is further wrong to suggest that I have not returned the cheque of the accused despite repeated requests by him. I am not in possession of any other cheque of the accused as on date. It is wrong to suggest that I am extending life threats to the accused in order to recover my money back. It is wrong to suggest that accused has no liability towards me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
3. After the said cross-examination, as CE was closed, therefore, statement of accused / revisionist u/s.313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which the accused / revisionist stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence.
4. The matter was posted for defence evidence on 14.03.2024, but no evidence in defence was led. Again the matter was posted for defence evidence on 02.05.2024, but no evidence was led, hence, one last opportunity was granted to the accused / revisionist to lead defence evidence and the matter was posted for 29.05.2024. On 29.05.2024, the opportunity of the accused / revisionist to lead defence evidence was closed, after noting that it was the third opportunity given to the accused / revisionist to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments for 08.07.2024. On 08.07.2024, the matter was again posted for final arguments on 05.08.2024, on which date, fresh vakalatnama was filed on behalf of accused / revisionist DLSH010068412024 Page 4 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar alongwith an application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. for further cross- examination of the complainant / R2. This application was taken up on 14.08.2024, however, on the said date, the said application was withdrawn in view of typographical error therein and a fresh application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. was filed, reply to which was filed by the complainant / R2 on the next date i.e. 11.09.2024. Arguments were heard on 11.09.2024 and finally the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the impugned order on 25.09.2024.
5. It is this impugned order, which is under challenge before this Court by way of present revision petition. Before coming to the grounds upon which the order has been assailed, it would be relevant to reproduce paras-5 to 12 of the impugned order, as under :
"5. It is settled proportion of law that right to cross examination for complainant is valuable right of the accused and cross examination of the complainant has to be allowed to bring out the truth before the Court.
6. As per Section 311 Cr.P.C., any court may, at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined.
7. It has been by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr.' [(2016) 2 SCC 402] that recall is not a matter of course and discretion has to be judiciously exercised. Mere change of counsel cannot be a ground for recalling a witness.
8. Perusal of the record shows that matter was at the stage of final arguments when the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C was filed by the accused for the first time which was later on withdrawn by him. Further, the accused was granted three opportunities to lead his DE which the accused chose not to lead and the right was closed vide order dated 29.05.2024. Further, perusal of the cross examination of DLSH010068412024 Page 5 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar the complainant reveals that the question intented to be asked to the witness have already been put forth to the witness in his cross examination on 10.01.2024 and despite the same being answered in negative, no evidence to the contrary was brought by the accused either in his cross examination or in the form of defence evidence.
9. Further, no new evidence or fact has been alleged to have been by the accused warranting the exercise of discretion u/s 311 Cr.P.C. In terms of the Judgments relied by the accused himself, there is no new evidence or the circumstance where the opportunity was not allowed to the accused to cross examine the prosecution witness.
10. The Gujarat High Court in the case Imran Karimbhai, Madam v. State of Gujarat, wherein it has been observed and reiterated that prosecution witnesses could not be recalled for cross-examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that certain important questions were not asked during the cross- examination.
11. In the present case, the application filed by the accused mentions that certain questions have been left to be put to the complainant but does not mention that some new facts have come to the knowledge of the accused which were not in his knowledge earlier and the questions being mentioned in the application have already been put to the witness.
12. Accordingly. it cannot be ruled out that the present application has only been filed to delay the present matter and without any merit as despite several opportunities, no evidence has been led by the accused and the only purpose of the application is to somehow revive the right of leading defence evidence and fill up the lacunae in the case. The law u/s 311 does not allow to fill up the lacunae in the case. Further, the applicant/accused has failed to show that without recalling the witnesses, Court is unable to deliver the judgment."
6. The aforesaid order has been assailed primarily on the following grounds :
1. That the revisionist / accused was misled by the previous counsel and due to his lack of competence, the cross-
examination of the complainant could not be done properly on 10.01.2024 and the truth could not be DLSH010068412024 Page 6 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar brought-forth before the Court.
2. That the complainant / respondent no.2 is a money lender, who charges interest on the money lend @ 5-8 % per month and also used to take two - three blank cheques as security as well as come blank documents like promissory notes, stamp papers and some plain papers as well.
3. That the revisionist / accused had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from respondent no.2 in the year 2019, against which the accused / revisionist had already repaid an amount of Rs.2 lakh and despite the recovery of the said amount, complainant / R2 did not return the blank security cheques and blank signed documents, rather, he misused the security cheques and filed the complaint case u/s.138 N.I. Act.
4. That it is only due to the fault of the previous counsel that the truth could not come before the Court, that complainant / R2 is in the illegal business of money lending and that several other persons have also been trapped by him in similar manner.
5. That the impugned order is contrary to the law of natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts.
6. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to take notice of the judgment titled P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of AP, AIR 2012 SC 2242, which was cited before the Ld. Trial Court.
7. That the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the accused / revisionist cannot be permitted DLSH010068412024 Page 7 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar to fill the lacuna, while in the judgment titled Varsha Garg Vs. State of MP, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held otherwise.
8. That the Ld. Trial Court also dismissed the application while noting that the accused has not disclosed the questions, which he wants to put to the complainant and is delaying the matter, w.r.t. which the Hon'ble High Court has made categorical observations in judgment titled as Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh vs Smt. Ravinder Kaur and Amarjeet @ Kaluwa Vs. State of UP.
7. Besides the aforesaid grounds on revision, in the revision petition from Para-G from page 7 onwards, the revisionist has relied upon following judgments in support of the revision petition, which have also been annexed with this revision petition.
1. Varsha Garg versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 662 ;
2. Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh vs Smt. Ravinder Kaur, decided on 05.01.2023 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ; and
3. Amarjeet @ Kaluwa vs State Of U.P. & Anr., decided by the Hon'ble Allahbad High Court on 2 November, 2020.
8. Notice of the revision petition was issued to R2 and reply to the same was filed on 11.12.2024 and copy was supplied to the revisionist. In reply to the application, complainant / R2 has strongly opposed the present revision petition on the following grounds :
1. That though, the revisionist had made allegations of lack DLSH010068412024 Page 8 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar of professional competence on the part of previous counsel, but no complaint in this regard was made by the revisionist to the higher authorities / BCD.
2. That the earlier counsel engaged by the revisionist was engaged by him out of his own choice, who defended the accused right from the beginning till the stage of final arguments and that the present application has been filed only to prolong the matter by delaying the proceedings.
3. That the present revision petition is vague and baseless filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings as the matter pertains to the year 2021 and the application has been filed almost after four years at the stage of final arguments, that too, after the opportunity of the accused to lead defence evidence was closed after three dates were given for the said purpose.
4. That the sole purpose of the revisionist is to delay the proceedings as the earlier application filed u/s.311 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn citing typographical errors and again another application was moved seeking the same relief, which was dismissed by the impugned order.
5. That the questions which were required to be put to the witness, have already been put by the earlier counsel on 10.01.2024.
9. Ld. Counsel for R2 also relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments that the present revision is liable to be rejected :
1. AG Vs. Shiv Kumar Yagav & Ors., Hon'ble Supreme DLSH010068412024 Page 9 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar Court, decided on 10.09.2015 ;
2. Kurian Energikanri India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, decided on 24.11.2022 ; and
3. Imran Karim Bhai madam Vs. State of Gujarat, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, decided on 15.12.2012.
10. The Court now proceeds to discuss the grounds, on which the impugned order has been challenged under the following headings :
Delay in filing application
11. On the point of delay, it is a matter of record that the complainant was cross-examined on 10.01.2024 and thereafter, the matter was listed on several dates i.e. 14.03.2024, 02.05.2024, 29.05.024 and 08.07.2024 and the application was finally moved on 05.08.2024, which was also withdrawn on the next date i.e. 14.08.2024 and a fresh application was filed on that day, which was finally decided by the impugned order on 25.09.2024. Thus, as per record, after the witness was cross- examined on 10.01.2024, the matter remained listed for defence evidence for three dates and for final arguments for two dates, after which the application which was disposed of vide impugned order, was filed.
12. The primary reason for the filing of the application at this stage, as per record, seems to be change of counsel, as in the order dated 05.08.2024, it is mentioned that Ld. Counsel for the accused filed fresh vakalatnama. Therefore, as per record, before the change of counsel, no need was felt by the accused / revisionist for further cross-examination of the complainant to DLSH010068412024 Page 10 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar elucidate the truth, as is now pleaded in the application.
13. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist on the point of delay has specifically cited judgment titled P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of AP (supra) and has strongly relied upon paras-5,7,12,13,14 & 17 of the said judgment.
A perusal of the said judgment reveals that in a criminal case under Prevention of Corruption Act, two witnesses i.e. PW1 & PW2 therein, were not cross-examined, as their cross-examination was recorded as 'Nil', as mentioned in para-4 of the cited judgment. The Trial Court, in that case refused refused to recall the said two witnesses after 3½ years of their examination, which order was finally set-aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the opportunity was granted to examine the said witnesses.
In the opinion of this Court, the said judgment in which two material witnesses were not cross-examined at all in a case involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be compared with a case u/s.138 N.I. Act, where the presumption is against the accused, more so, when the signatures on the cheques have duly admitted and further when the witness / complainant has been cross-examined by the previous counsel.
14. In the opinion of the Court, there is considerable delay in filing of the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. and the only reason for the same seems to be the change of counsel, which in itself will become a never ending process, as even after the cross- examination by another counsel, there will always be some questions left out, which a subsequent counsel, or a counsel even at appellate stage, may feel, should have been asked by the DLSH010068412024 Page 11 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar counsel, who was actually examining the witness in the dock.
15. The fact that the accused stated before the Ld. Magistrate that he wanted to lead defence evidence, but thereafter did not lead any defence evidence for three dates and after five dates, filed the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C., shows the delaying tactics being employed by the accused / revisionist. If the revisionist never intended to lead defence evidence, then he should have said so, at the very first stage before the Ld. Trial Court and should have moved this application at the earliest, rather than at the stage of final arguments. As rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. to further cross- examine the complainant / R2 seems to be an attempt to bring back the case to the stage of complainant evidence from the stage of final arguments. The delay in filing the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. has not been explained either in the application filed before the Ld. Trial Court, or in the present revision petition filed before this Court.
Filling up the lacuna in the prosecution case / incompetency of previous Counsel
16. Perusal of the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. reveals that in the second and third para of the application, in bold, it is stated that the application was filed primarily due to the incompetency of the previous counsel. The two paras of the application, which are also similar to para B and C of the present revision petition are reproduced as under :
"2. That the respondent is a innocent person and he was always DLSH010068412024 Page 12 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar misleaded by his previous counsel and due to the lack of duties of previous counsel the respondent is suffering in the present case.
3. That due the lackness of the previous counsel in the cross examination of the complainant/ Respondent No.2 could not came before this Hon'ble Court."
17. The question before the Court is : what are the grounds, on which the Court can decide that the previous counsel did not duly cross-examine the witness, when the opportunity was so given, so as to permit subsequent cross-examination of the witness at a later stage?
On this aspect, it is noted that the impugned order in para-8, the Ld. Trial Court has categorically observed that the perusal of the cross-examination of complainant reveals that the questions intended to be asked to the witness, have already been put- forth to the witness in his cross-examination on 10.01.2024 and that despite the same being answered in negative, no evidence to the contrary was brought by the accused in the form of defence evidence. It may be noted that the accused was questioned as regards his defence on 19.05.2023, in which he has stated that he had given security cheques qua the amount taken from the complainant / R2 and that he had already paid the entire amount, but the complainant still did not return the cheques and rather, threatened him. As far as this portion of the defence is concerned, relevant questions were put to the witness / complainant on 10.01.2024, as noted by the Ld. Trial Court. It may be pointed out here itself that at that stage, no defence was taken that amount of Rs.20,000/- was taken by the revisionist from complainant / R2 against which, amount of Rs.2 lakh i.e. ten DLSH010068412024 Page 13 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar times the amount, was paid back to the complainant. The said defence for the first time came up before this Court in para-E on page 5 of the revision petition, which is also reproduced as under :
"E. That in the present matter Accused had borrowed just Rs. 20,000/- from the Respondent No.2/ Complainant in the month of December 2019 and agaist the said loan the Respondent No.2/ Complainant had recovered almost Rs. 2,00,000/- from the accused/petitioner in the name of principal, Interest and penalties.
That despite recovery of hues amount from the Accused/ petitioner, the Respondent No.2/Complainant did not returned the blank surety cheques which were in signed condition with some blank documents in signed conditions to the accused/petitioner and by virtue of misusing the said surety cheque, the Respondent No.2/Complainant had filed the present complaint case just to harass the accused/petitioner and to get the unlawful gain and there is still possibility, that the Respondent No.2/ Complainant can misused those documents also to harass the accused/petitioner and get the unlawful gain."
18. The said defence was never taken either at the stage of disclosure of defence, when the notice u/s.251 Cr.P.C. was framed, or even subsequently, when application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. dated 06.08.2024 was filed. The said defence, which is taken in the revision petition, is also not in line with the defence taken by the accused before the Ld. Trial Court on 19.05.2023, when he stated "I had already paid the entire amount". At that stage, the accused did not mention that he had paid ten times the amount to the complainant / R2, which is a material fact, which should have been disclosed at the very first stage. Further, once, having admitted that some payments have been received, whatever amount it may be, the onus shifts on the party, who has received the payment to prove that the repayment of the same was also made, but in order to discharge that onus, the accused never DLSH010068412024 Page 14 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar stepped into the witness box, despite being given three dates for the said purpose. Even, as on date, it is not the case of the accused that he wants to appear in the witness box and depose regarding his defence and face cross-examination on that point, rather, what he is seeking by way of present revision petition, is to ask the complainant to once again face the cross-examination to prove a defence, which was never disclosed before the Trial Court at any stage.
19. Coming to the judgment, which has been cited by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist on the point that an application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that it would lead to filling the lacuna of the prosecution's case, it is found that in the judgment titled Varsha Garg (supra), the question before the Court was with respect to production and proving of some documents, which could not be proved earlier. The Ld. Counsel relied upon para-40 of the said judgment, wherein it was observed that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in rectifying such mistakes. The said paragraph is reproduced as under :
"40 The right of the accused to a fair trial is constitutionally protected under Article 21. However, in Mina Lalita Baruwa (supra), while reiterating Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Court observed that it is the duty of the criminal court to allow the prosecution to correct an error in interest of justice. In Rajendra Prasad (supra), the Court had held that:
"8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the DLSH010068412024 Page 15 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors, If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better."
(emphasis supplied) In the present case, the importance of the decoding registers was raised in the examination of PW-41. Accordingly, the decoding registers merely being additional documents required to be able to appreciate the existing evidence in form of the call details which are already on record but use codes to signify the location of accused, a crucial detail, which can be decoded only through the decoding registers, the right of the accused to a fair trial is not prejudiced. The production of the decoding registers fits into the requirement of being relevant material which was not brought on record due to inadvertence."
20. It may be noted that in the said case, an application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. was filed before the closure of the prosecution evidence as observed in para-41 and, therefore, in that case, which was a case u/s.302/34 IPC, the Court permitted summoning of certain records i.e. the decoding register, which could not be produced by the prosecution during Prosecution Evidence.
21. The facts of the present case are completely on different footing, as in the present case, the accused is not seeking summoning of any record, like in the case cited above, rather, what he is seeking is further cross-examination of complainant after the complainant has already been cross-examined by his previous counsel, because now he has engaged a new counsel.
DLSH010068412024 Page 16 of 17 CR No.227/24Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar Accused did not mention the questions, which were left to be put to the complainant / R2, when the said witness was cross- examined
22. As far as the said argument is concerned, on this aspect, the Ld. Counsel for revisionist relied upon the judgment titled Amarjeet @ Kaluwa Vs. State of UP (supra), wherein it is mentioned that there is no requirement under the law to file questionnaire alongwith the application for recalling the witness.
As far as the said observation in the impugned order is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the questionnaire is not required to be made part of the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. however, as noted earlier, the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. has not been dismissed merely on that ground. Though, the questionnaire to be put to the witness is not required to be annexed with the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C., but the reasons to recall a witness who has already been cross-examined, do need to be mentioned in the application and by merely stating that the previous counsel was incompetent by itself does not form a ground to further cross-examine a witness.
23. It was pointed out by Ld. Counsel during arguments that even if debt is admitted, still a case u/s.138 N.I. Act can culminate into conviction, only if the debt is a legally enforceable debt and not otherwise. The said submission made by Ld. Counsel is legally correct and it is true that only a legally enforceable debt can be the basis of a case u/s.138 N.I. Act, but the defence that complainant was running illegal business of money lending, was specifically put to the complainant in his cross-examination, when he stated "I am not in the business of money lending and the advancement to the accused was the first advancement ever DLSH010068412024 Page 17 of 17 CR No.227/24 Surender Singh Vs.State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
PS : Jyoti Nagar made by me". Thus, this defence was taken during the cross- examination of CW1 / complainant on 10.01.2024 and the question whether more questions could have been put on this aspect or not, would always remain open, as and when a new counsel is engaged by the accused.
Final observation
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of the Court, the Ld. Trial Court rightly dismissed the application u/s.311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused / revisionist, seeking a re-cross- examination of the complainant, after the complainant was already cross-examined by the counsel for revisionist on 10.01.2024. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
25. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
26. TCR, if any, be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed Announced in the open Court PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH on 24th December 2024 LALER Date: 2024.12.24 16:43:41 +0530 (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler) Special Judge (NDPS Act) Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts Delhi/24.12.2024