O.P. Mahajan vs State Of Punjab on 17 October, 2018
The other procedural defect which is quite material and has
come up at the trial and certainly to the mind of this Court, is to the
prejudice of the accused, who have been subsequently summoned by the
aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and has never been argued from any of the
sides, is the statement of PW1 Ajit Singh. After recording his
examination in-chief while he was being cross examined on 31.08.2005,
further cross examination was deferred as learned State counsel had
moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and upon summoning of
44 of 74
::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2018 22:32:01 :::
CRA-S-3958-SB of 2013 (O&M) & five other appeals 45
additional accused, without freshly holding retrial, was allowed to be
cross examined on behalf of the accused Dr.S.P.S. Grover and
Dr.Arjinder Singh, as is evident from evidence recorded on 08.05.2008.
When it is settled position of law, reference of which can be taken note of
the ratio laid down in 'Brindaban Das & others vs. State of West
Bengal' (supra) that in such an eventuality retrial is to be undertaken
which is totally amiss in the present case. Such a serious remiss certainly
goes to the roots of the prosecution case, resulting in mistrial and this
statement certainly does not carry any legal weight.