Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anees Ahmed Ansari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 12th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30761 of 2022
Between:-
ANEES AHMED ANSARI S/O SHRI JAMIL
AHMED ANSARI , AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 244-B NEW
ASHOKA GARDEN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHIJEET AWASTHI, ADVOCATE)
T h i s application coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE
VIRENDER SINGH passed the following:
ORDER
Being aggrieved by rejection of his application filed under Section 311,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for recalling of General Manager Mohan Kumar
Harne (PW-4) by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.3.2022 passed
in Special Case No. 600016/2015 by VI Additional Sessions Judge and Special
Signature Not Verified
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal district Bhopal, the petitioner has
SAN
invoked inherent power of this Court conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C to
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Date: 2022.07.14 15:27:40 IST
reverse the order and permit him to recall that witness for further cross-
examination.
2. The ground taken is that during his cross-examination conducted by
the Counsel of co-accused Harihar Prasad in paragraph 34 the witness admitted
that the Branch Manager, District Manager and General Manager all have
powers to examine the auction sale conducted by the person authorized by the
Bank and to send back the file without approval of the auction for rectification.
But, when the counsel for the petitioner examined him, he admitted that there is
no such procedure prescribed by law conferring such powers upon the Branch
Manager, District Manager or the General Manager. At the time of cross-
examination the counsel for the petitioner could not notice it and could not seek
his explanation with regard to the said contradictory statement. This may create
confusion at later stage or may prejudice the defence of the petitioner, therefore,
it is necessary to get the facts clear at this primary stage itself.
3. The application was opposed by the prosecution on the grounds that
the witness was called only to produce documents relating to the disputed
auction sale. He was not supposed to cross-examine on the procedure to be
followed by the Bank for auction sale and it is for the Court to determine
whether there is any such procedure prescribed or has been followed or not in
the disputed sale. Therefore, it does not make any difference if the witness has
stated something which is contrary to law. It does also not make any difference
because ultimately it is the law which would prevail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraphs 8 and 9
of the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1181 of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6396/2006) - Godrej Pacific Tech.
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. as also the order dated 14.3.2022 passed
Date: 2022.07.14 15:27:40 IST
by Single Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C No. 19849/2021 - Pahalwan Singh
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; wherein the object and scope of
Section 311 of Cr.P.C has been discussed in detail by both the Court.
5. The Trial Court conceded to the plea of the prosecution and further
observed that sufficient opportunities to cross-examine the witness was granted
and the same having been availed by the petitioner further re-cross-examination
of the witness is not required and dismissed the application.
6. We have heard the parties at length and have perused the record.
7. It is not disputed that witness Mohan Kumar Harne (PW-4) has been
produced by the prosecution only to produce certain documents relevant to the
decision in the matter pending before the Trial Court. Though he has stated in
paragraph 34 that there is a procedure to examine and to send back the files of
auction sale to rectify the mistake if noticed at any level, however, in paragraph
35 he admitted that there is no such procedure prescribed by the law and it is
the law which has to be followed.
8. Looking to the settled principle and observing that there appears no
need to recall the witness to re-cross-examine him for the facts appeared in his
cross-examination conducted by two different co-accused persons, we do not
find any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the order passed by Trial court.
9. Hence, the admission is declined and the petition is dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
vivek
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Date: 2022.07.14 15:27:40 IST
