Delhi High Court
R P Bali & Anr vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 26 February, 2018
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 26th FEBRUARY, 2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 154/2018
R P BALI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.B.P.Sharma, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP.
SI Pankaj, PS Kirti Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A.No. 3695/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A.No. 3696/2018 (Delay)
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of
delay in refiling the petition, the delay is condoned.
2. The application for condonation of delay is disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 154/2018 & CRL.M.A.No.3694/2018
1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated
22.05.2017 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge by which application filed
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall certain witnesses was dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
have examined the file. Counsel urged that the recall of these
witnesses PWs-1, 4, 7, 8 & 9 is essential as they could not be cross-
examined at the relevant time due to non-availability of the previous
counsel. He further urged that these witnesses are material to decide
the dispute arising in the present FIR.
3. Perusal of the file reveals that the FIR was lodged in
2008 under Sections 325/307/342/34 IPC at PS Kirti Nagar. Various
witnesses were examined by the prosecution during trial on different
dates. PW-1 (Sharda Bali) was examined on 18.07.2011; her cross-
examination continued on 12.03.2012, 21.04.2012 and could be
concluded only on 07.09.2012. Apparently, she was cross-examined
at length. PW-4 (Dr.Amit Aggarwal) was examined on 26.10.2012.
On the request of the petitioners, the cross-examination was deferred
due to non-availability of the counsel for 21.08.2012. On that day too,
the counsel was not available and the cross-examination was recorded
'nil' despite opportunity given. PW-7 (Const. Manoj Kumar) and
PW-8 (Dr.Lokesh) appeared before the Court for recording statements
on 29.04.2014 and 21.08.2014 respectively. They were not cross-
examined by the petitioners. PW-9 (Dr.S.P.Barua) recorded his
statement on 29.09.2014 without any cross-examination by the
petitioners. All these witnesses were examined in 2014. The
petitioners did not file any application to recall all these witnesses on
any specific ground earlier. No plausible explanation has been offered
by the accused persons as to why they took three years to recall these
witnesses.
4. The impugned order declining to recall the witness was
passed on 22.05.2017. Again, the petitioners have taken more than 9
months to challenge the said order. Impugned order records that the
case was listed for recording statements of the accused persons /
petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The intention to recall
witnesses seems to delay the disposal of the case.
5. In 311 Cr.P.C. application moved before the Trial Court,
it was informed that previously Mr.V.K.Ohri, Advocate was engaged
to conduct the trial on behalf of the petitioners but due to his attitude
of non-attending the hearing of the present case, another counsel was
engaged. It was, however, not explained as to why the petitioners
took so much time to change the counsel if there was any difficulty for
him to appear before the Court.
6. The impugned order based upon fair appreciation of facts
and law deserves no intervention.
7. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.
8. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2018 / tr/bh
