Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar Jutshi Alias Bunty vs State Nct Of Delhi on 14 September, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 14th September, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. No.3728/2015
SANJAY KUMAR JUTSHI ALIAS BUNTY ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Bankim K. Kulshreshtha
and Mr. Harish Nautiyal,
Advocates.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Amit Chadha,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State with SI L.
Sharma, STF/Crime Branch,
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A.No. 13213/2015 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
CRL.M.C. No.3728/2015 & Crl. M.A.No. 13212/2015
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated
20.07.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the petitioner was
confined to close the cross-examination of Inspector Ram Avtar (PW37)
and Shri Vidya Prakash (PW7) and for expunging the remarks made
against the counsel for the petitioner during cross-examination of PW37
on 14.05.2015.
2. Pursuant to directions dated 29.06.2015 passed by this Court in Crl.
M.C. No.2545/2015, application filed by the petitioner under Section 311
Cr.P.C. was taken up for disposal by the learned Trial Court.
Accordingly, the said application qua Inspector Rajinder Bhatia (PW10)
was allowed and the same was dismissed for recalling PW7 and PW37.
3. As regards recalling of Inspector Ram Avtar (PW37) is concerned,
while rejecting the same, the learned Trial Court recorded that his cross-
examination was closed on 14.05.2015 with directions that in case, any
material question appears to have been asked from this witness, counsel
for the petitioner shall make appropriate application, which shall be
considered after hearing arguments of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor as well.
4. However, it would be appropriate that in case the petitioner asks the
repeated questions, the learned Trial Court may reject the same and if any
other question is asked, the same may be allowed or disallowed by the
learned Trial Court after recording the same.
5. In view of the above observations, the order dated 20.07.2015
rejecting recalling of Inspector Ram Avatar (PW37) is hereby set aside
and the learned Trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the
petitioner to cross-examine the said witness.
6. So far as application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with respect to
recalling of Vidya Prakash (PW7) is concerned, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that cross-examination of PW7 was closed for the
reason that the petitioner has asked some questions on procedure, being
not permissible.
7. I note, the learned Trial Court has not recorded such questions put
by the petitioner and has closed the cross-examination of PW7.
8. Keeping in view the observations made above, the learned Trial
Court is directed to allow the petitioner to cross-examine PW7 and if the
petitioner asks the questions which are not permissible, the Trial Court
may reject the same after recording.
9. In view of the above, order dated 20.07.2015 qua PW7 is hereby set
aside.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that during cross-
examination of Inspector Ram Avtar (PW37), the learned Trial Court has
made observations against the counsel for the petitioner by stating that the
"questions does not appear to be sensible in view of the objections of
learned APP for State".
11. This Court is of the considered view that instead of writing the
word „sensible‟, the learned Trial Court should have rejected the same by
recording irrelevant. Therefore, I expunge the aforementioned remark
made against the counsel for the petitioner accordingly.
12. In view of the above, the petition alongwith pending application is
disposed of.
13. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
sb
