IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Ankit – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Cr.M.C. 2977 of 2023
Decided On : 27-04-2023
Calendar of Evidence - Examination of Witnesses - The court directed the Trial Court to prepare a detailed case calendar for the examination of witnesses and to fix a fresh date for summoning public witnesses in such a manner that they are duly examined and cross-examined on the given date.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order summoning six public witnesses together, citing humanly impossibility to examine all of them and incomplete supply of witness statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's contentions plausible and directed the Trial Court to prepare a detailed case calendar for the examination of witnesses and to fix a fresh date for summoning public witnesses.
Issues: Challenging the order summoning six public witnesses together and incomplete supply of witness statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The Trial Court should prepare a calendar of evidence and have a complete road map for the prosecution evidence, ensuring that witnesses are duly examined and cross-examined on the given date.
Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of with the directions to the Trial Court.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"a) Pass an Order thereby quashing the quashing of the Order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Court of Sh. Shivaji Anand, Ld. ASJ-04, North Rohini Courts;
b) Direct the Ld. ASJ-04, North Rohini Courts to prepare a detailed case calendar for the examination of witnesses in SC No. 460/2021;"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.01.2023 whereby six public witnesses have been summoned together by the learned Trial Court He submits that it will be humanly impossible for the petitioner to examine all the public witnesses.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention to the true copy of the statement of Master Aditya and Master Fateh Singh. Learned counsel submits that these statements have not been supplied.
4. I have seen the case diary and the perusal of the case diary indicates that the front page of the statement of Master Aditya has been supplied but the back page of this statement has not been supplied. Similarly it seems that the copy of the statement of Fateh Singh as filed by the petitioner with the petition is incomplete as the back page has not been supplied.
5. Learned APP for the State submitted that the complete statement has already been supplied. However, without going into this conspiracy, IO/Insp. Varun Dalal is directed to supply the complete set of the copy of both sides (Single Page) be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself.
6. As far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the calendar of the witness should have been prepared by the learned Session Court and altogether six public witnesses should not have been examined on the same. I consider that this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is plausible. It is always advisable that the learned Trial Courts while fixing for prosecution evidence should prepare a calendar of evidence and have a complete road map for the prosecution evidence. The court can take judicial notice of the fact that on a given date it is impossible to examine six public witnesses. It is also correct that the prosecutor as well as the defence witness have to prepare themselves for the examination of the witness. Hence the learned Trial Court is directed to fix a fresh date for summoning of the public witnesses in such a manner that they are duly examined and cross-examined on the given date. This court is of the view that generally also the Trial Courts should adopt this practice.
7. However, so far as tomorrow date is concerned the learned Trial Court shall proceed to examine the witnesses available with it but thereafter adjourn the case in such a manner that reasonable number of witnesses are examined who can be examined and cross examined on the same date.
8. With these directions the petition stands disposed of.
The Trial Court should prepare a detailed case calendar for the examination of witnesses and fix a fresh date for summoning public witnesses in such a manner that they are duly examined and cross-exa....
Order XVI Rule 1(3) envisages a request, by a party, to call a witness other than one whose name figures in list of witnesses filed under Order XVI Rule 1(1).
A party may summon additional witnesses even after issues have been framed, provided they demonstrate plausible reasons for their omission in the initial list, as required by the procedural guideline....
An original petition challenging interlocutory orders becomes infructuous and is liable to be closed once the underlying suit has been finally disposed of by the trial court.
Petitioners must be granted sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in court proceedings, with conditions imposed to prevent delay and frivolous adjournments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.