Satish Kumar Saini vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 6089 P&H

CRM-M-38071-2019                                                    -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                              CRM-M-38071-2019 (O&M)
                                              Date of decision: 04.07.2022

Satish Kumar Saini
                                                               ....Petitioner



                                 Versus



State of Punjab
                                                             ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:    Mr. Shiv Charan Bhola, Advocate (legal aid counsel)
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

                  ******

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated

02.09.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali in

cross-version Challan No.CHI/84/2017, arising out of FIR No.49 dated

19.05.2015 under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 IPC, registered at

Police Station Phase-XI, Mohali.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

moved an application before the trial Court for following a proper procedure

that statements in version and cross-version be recorded separately,

however, vide impugned order dated 02.09.2019, the trial Court, though, as

1 of 2

per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which it is held that the

Court has to decide the version and cross-version together, however, it is

observed that proceedings i.e. recording of the evidence in the version and

cross-version is to be recorded together, which is not correct approach.

Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court dated

28.05.2019 in CRA-D-152-DB-2018 (Lakhbir Singh and anr. Vs. State of

Punjab), wherein it is observed that the trial is to be conducted one after the

other and after recording of evidence in one case and on hearing the

arguments in one case, the judgment is required to be reserved. It is

submitted that both cases i.e. version and cross-version are to be decided by

passing to separate judgments i.e. after recording separate evidence in both

the cases.

Learned State counsel could not dispute the legal proposition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this petition is

disposed of and the impugned order dated 02.09.2019 is modified to the

extent that though version and cross-version will be tried together by the

same Court, however, evidence will be recorded separately and both cases

(version and cross-version) will be decided by passing separate judgments,

though on the same day.

                                          [ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
04.07.2022                                         JUDGE
vishnu


Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No

Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                 2 of 2