Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mamta Sehgal vs State Of Haryana on 24 March, 2014
Z%
ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).6299/2013
(From the judgement and order dated 09/07/2013 in CRLM-21461/2013 of The
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA)
MAMTA SEHGAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
(With application for stay and office report)
WITH SLP(CRL) NO. 9542/2013
[RAJ KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With application for bail and office report)
Date: 24/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Seeraj Bagga, Adv.
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sukhmani Bajwa, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
|SLP(CRL) No. 6299/2013 | |Leave granted. | |The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. | |SLP(Crl) No. 6542/2013 |
|We find no infirmity in the order impugned herein. The Special Leave Petition | |is dismissed. | | | |[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[SHARDA KAPOOR] | |COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
[SIGNED ORDER in SLP(Crl) 6299/2013 IS PLACED ON THE FILE.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2014 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL) NO. 6299 OF 2013] MAMTA SEHGAL ..... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT O R D E R Leave granted.
2. The appellant is facing criminal trial in FIR NO. 178 dated 1st April, 2012 for offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By order dated 10th January, 2013, the High Court had allowed the appellant to recall four prosecution witnesses for examination on the condition that the appellant makes a pre-deposit of Rs. 20,000/- per witness. As the appellant failed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- per witness, the trial court rejected the prayer for recall by orders dated 6th May, 2013 and 30th May, 2013. The appellant moved the High Court against the orders dated 6th May, 2013 and 30th May, 2013 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but by the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the application of the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the considered opinion that as the appellant is facing prosecution for a serious offence under Section 304B IPC, she should be allowed all reasonable opportunities for examining the prosecution witnesses.
4. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court as well as the trial court and remand the matter to the trial court for examining the aforesaid four prosecution witnesses. The appellant will deposit, if she has not already deposited, the cost of Rs. 20,000/- per witness within a period of two weeks from today and the trial court will recall the four prosecution witnesses for examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and expedite the completion of trial.
.................................J [A.K. PATNAIK] ...............................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] NEW DELHI MARCH 24, 2014.