Back
2002 Supreme(P&H) 358
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M. Kumar, J.
Kartar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Thakur Singh - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 1773 of 2002.
Decided On : 3 April, 2002
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that cross examination of co-defendants is permissible to the extent of their clash of interest, in accordance with Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act - Cross Examination of Co-defendants - The court allowed cross examination of co-defendants to the extent of their clash of interest, in accordance with Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petition was filed against an order allowing cross examination by one co-defendant of another co-defendant to the extent of their clash of interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was in line with the provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act and the relevant judgments, as it allowed cross examination only to the extent of clash of interest and provided for appreciation by the court if collusion was found at a later stage.
Issues: The issue was whether the impugned order contravened the provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act by allowing cross examination of the defendant when the co-defendant had filed a written statement without contradicting their stand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was in consonance with the provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it allowed cross examination only to the extent of clash of interest and provided for appreciation by the court if collusion was found at a later stage.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the impugned order allowing cross examination of co-defendants to the extent of their clash of interest.
M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2002 allowing the cross examination by one co-defendant of another co- defendant to the extent of their clash of interest. The order of the Civil Judge reads as under :
"I have perused the file and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the defendants are entitled to cross examine the co-defendants to the extent of their clash of interest. However, if at the appropriate stage, it is found that both the defendants were in fact colluding, the same can be appreciated by the Court at the appropriate stage and denial to cross examine will lead to more harm than to allow them to cross examine. As such, counsel for Vikram Soni Shri S.R. Wadhera, Adv. is allowed to cross examine the co-defendants."
2. Shri H.S. Bhullar, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has argued that the impugned order contravenes the provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity the Act) because once the co- defendant had filed the written statement without contradicting the stand taken by them, the cross examination of the defendant is not permissible. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sadhu Singh v. Sant Narain Singh Sewadar and others, AIR 1978 P&H 319. He has also relied upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chand v. Smt. Hari Devi and others, 1987(1) PLR 257 where judgment in Sadhu Singhs case (supra) was also relied upon.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge is in consonance with the provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of the Act and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel. The Civil Judge is conscious of the fact that cross examination is to be allowed only to the extent of clash of interest of the co-defendant. It has also been taken care of that if at later stage the court finds that defendants were colluding, the same would be appreciated by the Court at the appropriate stage.
In view of the above, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
