Delhi High Court
Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva & Anr. vs State Nct Of Delhi on 12 March, 2010
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 238/2010
% Date of Order: 12th March, 2010
# DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA & ANR. ..... Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Ajay Burman and
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advs.
versus
$ STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP
with IO SI Rajender Prasad, PS
Tughlaq Road.
* CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? No
: V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition against the Order dated 13th October,
2009 whereby the application of the petitioner dated 4th April,
2007 for recalling PW-3 Harish Sachdeva for cross-
examination was dismissed. A perusal of the record would
show that Harish Sachdeva was examined- in-chief on 23rd
January, 2003. Since the petitioner did not cross-examine
him, the witness was discharged without cross-examination.
On an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C., the Trial Court directed recalling of the witness for the
purpose of his cross-examination, subject to the payment of
Rs.500/- as costs by the petitioner. However, the petitioner did
not avail the opportunity granted to him, and therefore the
witness was discharged without cross-examination. According
to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 4th April, 2007
when this witness was discharged, he was busy in the Court of
ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts and, therefore, was not in a position
to appear before the Trial Court for the purpose of cross-
examining PW-3 Shri Harish Sachdeva.
2. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the
proceedings dated 4th April, 2007 in the Court of ACMM, in the
case registered vide FIR No.222/1992 of PS Pahar Ganj. The
proceedings show that his counsel Shri Ajay Burman was busy
in that case till 1.00 pm. Thus, the counsel could not have
cross-examined PWs before 1.00 pm on 4th April, 2007. The
application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
on the same date shows that the witness was discharged at
12.45 pm. Hence, there was some justification for the counsel
not being able to appear, before the witness was discharged.
3. It is true that the petitioner has been quite negligent in
the matter of cross-examination of the witness and did not
avail the opportunity granted to him for this purpose. But,
considering the fact that PW-3 is a material witness, the
counsel was genuinely busy on the date the witness was
discharged and that the evidence of the prosecution is yet to
be concluded, I feel that in the interest of justice, one more
opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine
the witness, subject to appropriate costs. Hence, subject to
petitioner depositing Rs.25,000/- as costs with Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee, one last and final opportunity
is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-3 Shri Harish
Sachdeva.
4. The matter is coming up before the Trial Court on 15th
and 16th March, 2010. The Investigating Officer, who is
present in the Court, is directed to take dasti notice of the
witness Harish Sachdeva from the Trial Court on 15th or 16th
March, 2010 for a suitable date to be fixed by the Trial Court
for his cross-examination. The Investigating Officer will get
Harish Sachdeva served for that date. The cross-examination
of the witness will begin at 11.00 am on that day. No further
opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for his cross-
examination. The costs with Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee will be deposited by 15th March, 2010 and the
receipt will be submitted before the Trial Court by 16th March,
2010, alongwith a copy of this order.
CRL.M.C. 238/2010 stands disposed of.
(V.K.JAIN)
JUDGE
MARCH 12, 2010/BG
