Delhi High Court
Fateh Chand vs Cbi on 30 November, 2022
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005320
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 6366/2022
FATEH CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hemant Shah, Advocate.
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sarthak Anand with Ms. Ankita
Gautam and Mr. Madhulak Bhardwaj,
Advocates.
% Date of Decision:30th November, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.24878/2022 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 6366/2022 & CRL.M.A. 24877/2022
1. Present petition has been filed challenging the Court's observation
recorded by the learned Special Judge, CBI during the cross-examination of
PW-13 Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh, recorded on 04.11.2022. The relevant
portion of the cross-examination is as follows:-
"Ql, Q2, S1 and S2 were sent to CFSL on 07.06.2017
and was not in my possession on 07.06.2017. I do not
remember the exact time when I sent the same to CFSL. I can
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:05.12.2022
17:15:58
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005320
not tell even by approximation as to whether the same were
sent to CFSL at 11AM, 12 Noon, 2PM, 3PM, 4PM or 5PM.
Attention of the witness is drawn to internal page 2 of
Ex. PW4/5 (Colly.) at encircled portion X and the witness is
asked that if it is correct that Q1 is mentioned at point X.
After seeing the same, witness states that it is correct that Q1
is mentioned at point X. It is correct that Q1 was played to
the witness and the transcription was prepared on
07.06.2017. (Vol: Ql and Q2 were played to both the
witnesses and the complainant.). The witnesses were present
with me till evening on that day.
Court Question: Did you play the original Ql and Q2 to
both the witnesses and the complainant or the copies of Ql
and Q2? (Court question is objected to by the Ld. Counsel
for Al on the ground that witness has voluntarily even
stated about playing Ql and Q2 and also stated about not
being aware of the CBI Manual and the court question is to
seek explanation on the contradiction in the cross
examination which is not inconformity with law.)
Court Observation: The objection is not sustainable as there
is no contradiction in the cross examination and only
clarification has been sought from the witness as to whether
he played the original memory cards Q1 and Q2 or the
copies thereof."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Special
Judge, CBI has not only rejected the objections raised by the defence
counsel but has also returned a finding that there is no contradiction in the
cross-examination on this point. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that this finding could have been given only after the appreciation of the
entire evidence of PW-13 Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:05.12.2022
17:15:58
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005320
3. Learned counsel for CBI states that the objection, as being raised by
the learned defence counsel, has rightly been rejected and the judge has
ample power to put the question to the witness in the witness box.
4. There is no doubt as to the proposition that the learned Trial Judge has
ample power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
objective of the Judge while conducting the trial is a quest for truth.
Learned Judge in order to reach to the justice may put any question to the
witness. However, the learned Judge should have restrained himself from
giving any finding which may ultimately prejudice either of the parties
during the course of evidence. This Court considers that without going into
the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties, the observations of
the learned Trial Court that there is no contradiction in the cross-
examination of PW-13 Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh needs to be set aside.
5. Learned Special Judge shall consider the objections, as raised by the
learned defence counsel, during the cross examination of PW-13 Sh. Ajay
Kumar Singh, at the time of the final adjudication of the case taking into
account entire evidence of PW-13 Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh will be on record.
Thus, the objection as raised by the learned defence counsel in response to
the court question, i.e., "Did you play the original Ql and Q2 to both the
witnesses and the complainant or the copies of Ql and Q2?" shall remain
open. For the purpose of clarity, the objection of the learned defence
counsel shall remain open to be argued by the learned defence counsel at the
time of the final adjudication of the case.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:05.12.2022
17:15:58
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005320
6. However, it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits
of the case and no expression made herein shall tantamount to an expression
on the merits of the case.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
NOVEMBER 30, 2022
st
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:05.12.2022
17:15:58
