Patna High Court
Akhilesh Sah vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 8 March, 2006
Author: Rekha Kumari
Bench: Rekha Kumari
ORDER Rekha Kumari, J.
Page 1131
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by Sri. V.K. Singh, J.M. 1st Class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 676-C of 1994 by which he has recalled the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 for his cross examination.
2. Heard.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complaint Case No. 676-C of 1994 was fixed for judgment, but the trial court did not deliver the judgment and recalled the complainant of the case, namely, Ram Nath Sah for his further cross examination. Learned Counsel also submitted that the complainant was given ample opportunity to adduce his evidence, even then he did not complete his evidence. Hence, adjournment of the judgment and recall of the complainant for further cross examination is bad in the eye of law. The provisions of Section 311 of the Code is Page 1132 not meant for filling up the lacuna of the prosecution. Therefore, the said order is fit to be quashed.
4. Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 Mr. R.K. Singh, submitted that he is not Advocate on record but he belongs to the same office. He objected to the above submissions and replied that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned court below and the application is fit to be dismissed.
5. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, I also find that under Section 311 of the Code, the trial court is fully empowered to examine, re-examine or get any witness further cross examined in the interest of justice. In the present case, from a perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned trial court at the time of delivery of the judgment detected that cross-examination of the complainant Ram Nath Sah was not complete, rather he was examined in part only. Therefore, in the interest of justice he deferred the judgment and ordered that the complainant be recalled for his further cross-examination.
6. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which has been passed to secure the ends of justice. This Criminal Misc. is, therefore, dismissed. But it is hereby observed that the Complainant (O.P. No. 2) would produce himself for his further cross examination before the learned trial court concerned and the petitioner would co-operate and conclude the cross examination. Therefore, the complainant (O.P. No. 2) is directed to appear before the learned trial court concerned within next three months from the date of receipt/production of this order on any date fixed in the case for his further cross examination and the petitioner would cross examine him on that date or in case of any genuine difficulty on the next date for which the trial court would give short adjournment.