Uttarakhand High Court
Kamlesh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.280 of 2023
Kamlesh Bisht S/o Jeet Singh ...... Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned AGA along with Mr. P.S. Uniyal,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
This criminal revision has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2023
passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Haldwani, District Nainital in Sessions Trial No.52 of
2022, State vs. Kamlesh Bisht.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that on 03.02.2023 the learned counsel for the
revisionist in the learned Lower Court could not cross-
examine the witness as he was busy in another POCSO
Court. He would further submit that if opportunity to
cross-examine PW1 Anil Rawat is not afforded to the
revisionist then it will prejudice the defence of the
revisionist.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State Ms.
Manisha Rana Singh would submit that on 31.08.2022
statement of PW1 Anil Rawat was recorded and the
revisionist was given ample opportunity to cross-
examine PW1 Anil Rawat but said witness was not cross-
examined till 03.50 pm and the revisionist kept learned
Lower Court waiting.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on file.
5. Perusal of the impugned order dated
03.02.2023 shows that the learned Lower Court made
the observation that on 31.08.2022 the statement of
PW1 was to be recorded and an opportunity was given to
the counsel for the revisionist in learned Lower Court to
cross-examine the witness, but at 03.50 pm learned
counsel for the revisionist gave an application stating
that he is not well, therefore, unable to cross-examine
the witness, however, he orally stated that he was busy
in POCSO Court in an evidence.
6. Learned Lower Court further observed in the
impugned order that the witness was present on that
date since morning and the learned counsel for the
revisionist caused the delay till evening. Learned Lower
Court further made observation in the impugned order
that the attitude of the revisionist was to delay the
matter so as to compel the complainant to arrive at the
compromise terms.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not able
to show as to how PW1 is an important witness and if
the opportunity to cross-examine him is not afforded to
the learned counsel for the revisionist before the lower
court; how his case would be prejudiced.
8. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, an
opportunity is given to the revisionist, albeit at the cost
of ₹10,000/-, which shall be deposited by the revisionist
with the High Court Legal Services Committee, within a
period of 15 days from today.
9. Subject to the above, present criminal revision
stands disposed of.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
03.05.2023
BS
