Judgment

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, J. :-CRM-34832-2022

The present application is for condonation of delay of 745 days in filing the present revision petition, which is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner.

In view of the reasons stated in the application that the earlier revision petition filed by the petitioner i.e. CRR-3649-2018, which was adjourned sine die on 8.1.2019 and later on, vide order dated 6.9.2022, it was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, the present application is allowed and the delay of 745 days in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned.

CRR 1910-2022 (O&M)

1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.6.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for recalling the Investigating Officer, namely, Surjit Singh (since retired) for cross-examination, has been declined.

2. As is apparent from the application seeking condonation of delay as also the grounds of revision, the petitioner had filed CRR 3649-2018 on 1.6.2018, which was adjourned sine die on 8.1.2019 and later on, it was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.9.2022 to file afresh with better particulars.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on query posed by the Court submits that the prosecution evidence is still going on, which is also not disputed by the learned State counsel. Learned counsel has placed on record the application, Annexure P-3, filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to submit that the cross-examination of the witness, who was an eye witness of the incident, could not be done by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court on account of the fact that his counsel was suffering from severe throat infection. The relevant para No.2 of the same reads thus:-

“2. That at the time of examination of witness Surjit Singh (who is the IO of the case) counsel of applicant could not appear because he was suffering with severe throat infection, so under the circumstance, above mentioned, the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to cross examination the above witness. The mentioned witness is material witness, his cross-examination should be accorded by recalling him which is very much necessary, in the interest of law.”

4. Learned counsel further refers to Annexure P2, to submit that the presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court has not been marked on account of the fact that he being been unwell, as stated in the application, however, the cross-examination had been conducted by Sh. KS Mehta, Advocate for accused Simranjit Singh, whose presence is marked. The relevant portion of the statement reads thus:

“I had not noted down serial number of Hongkong dollars. I had not verified from immigration regarding arrival and departure of the victims and accused to India. I had not verified passports of the accused. It is wrong that police intentionally violated the rights of the accused available to him under the law. It is wrong that false case has been registered against the accused. XXXmn by accused Harbhajan Singh. No further question.”

5. Learned counsel submits that it is on account of the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cross- examination of the witness could not be conducted. He seeks only one opportunity to cross-examine PW8 Surjit Singh, Retired Inspector, which may even be subject to the costs.

6. Learned counsel relies on Veena vs. State of Punjab, CRMM-28916-2003 , decided on 8.7.2003 to contend that the petitioner should not suffer on account of the fault of the counsel.

7. N