Gurcharan Singh vs Customs
2015 Latest Caselaw 2268 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: March 17, 2015
+     CRL.M.C. 1053/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.3930/2015
      GURCHARAN SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                  Through:              Mr. Karan Pal Singh, Advocate

                          versus

      CUSTOMS                                               ..... Respondent
                          Through:      Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Petitioner is facing trial in a complaint case No.07/3/12, under Sections 21/23/28/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and is aggrieved by disallowing of question put to Superintendent, Central Excise, Panchkula, Haryana (PW-10). The question put to this witness is as under:-

"Q. Is any notification published in the official gazette by the central govt. or state govt. of NCT of Delhi to the effect that the powers of an officer incharge of a police station are vested in you, specially in you Sh. Rajiv Kumar Arora, for the investigation of the offences under NDPS Act?

Question disallowed."

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that similar question was put to the other witnesses i.e. PW-15 & PW-27, which has been answered

Crl.M.C.No.1053/2015 Page 1 by them and so, there is no justification for disallowing the aforesaid question put to this witness (PW-10).

Upon hearing and on perusal of the deposition of this witness (PW-

10), I find that the same question was put to this witness while opening his cross-examination and this question stands actually answered by this witness (PW-10), as under:-

"Ans. No special notification in my name was published by central govt. in official gazette. However, I am officer of custom working in central government."

It is apparent that the only difference between the earlier question put to this witness (PW-10), which stands answered as above, and the question being put to this witness subsequently, is that the words „incharge of a police station‟ is not there in the earlier similar question put to this witness, which already stands answered.

Since the afore-noted question put to this witness already stands answered, therefore, disallowing of this question put to this witness (PW-

10) at subsequent stage does not suffer from any palpable error.

This petition and application are accordingly dismissed, while refraining to comment upon the merits of this case.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                         JUDGE
MARCH 17, 2015
r




Crl.M.C.No.1053/2015                                                Page 2