Mehboob Hasan vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 1437 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 11, 2015
                          DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 19, 2015

+              CRL.REV.P. 503/2014 & Crl.M.A.13226/2014

       MEHBOOB HASAN                                       ..... Petitioner
                   Through:             Mr. Hasan Anzar with Mr. Samama
                                        Suhail, Advocates.

                          versus

       STATE                                             ..... Respondent
                          Through:      Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP.
                                        Insp. Sanjay Kumar, P.S.Najafgarh.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2014 of learned

Additional Sessions Judge-03, Dwarka, whereby the application under

Section 311 Cr.P.C.to recall PW-4 (Atul Khullar), PW-14 (Amar Pal

Verma) and PW-29 (Insp.R.R.Khatana) for further cross-examination and

to summon Daljeet Singh as court witness was declined with costs

`2,000/-, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and

learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. The

petitioner is facing trial under Section 392/302/34 IPC in FIR 239/93 and

was arrested in 2009. The prosecution examined 29 witnesses to

substantiate its case. An application moved on 07.01.2010 by the

petitioner to preserve certain call detail record of various mobile phones

was allowed by an order dated 13.01.2010. The petitioner examined

defence witnesses. The instant application was moved thereafter on

03.05.2014 and was dismissed with reasoned order by the trial court on

22.07.2014. PW-4 and PW-14 were cross-examined at length in 2010.

PW-29 (Insp.R.R.Khatana) was questioned on number of dates thoroughly

on various aspects and all sorts of questions were put to him. No

reasonable explanation has been offered by the petitioner for not moving

any application to recall them at the earliest. The petitioner was well

aware about the statements given by these witnesses and had moved the

application to preserve call detail record of various mobile phones owned

and possessed by them. Nothing has been explained how their further

cross-examination on any vital fact is relevant for the just decision of the

case. It appears that only intention of the petitioner is to delay the trial by

filing various applications under Sections 311 Cr.P.C. It is unexplainable

as to why the petitioner intends to recall Daljeet Singh as court witness. It

is alleged by the petitioner that all these PWs were in constant touch with

each other on various dates at the relevant time on phone and hatched

conspiracy to falsely implicate him in this case. The Trial Court is yet to

return any such finding and all these pleas can be raised before the Trial

Court at the time of final disposal of the case.

3. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed with costs

`20,000/- to be deposited with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within

two weeks.

4. Crl.M.A.13226/2014 also stands disposed of. Trial Court

record (if any) be sent back along with the copy of this order.

5. Observations in the order shall have no impact on the merits

of the case.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 19, 2015 sa