IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
Surinderpal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRR-562 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for recalling witnesses (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's procedural issues raised (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. trial court's decision on cross-examination (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. sufficient opportunities for cross-examination provided (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. petitioner's tactics found dilatory (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. impugned order upheld (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
The instant revision petition has been filed by accused/petitioner Surinderpal Singh assailing order dated 22.2.2023 vide which an application dated 20.2.2023 (Annexure P-3) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for recalling 8 prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-20 Divleen Singh, PW-53 Surinder Kumar, PW-57 Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, PW-71 Ashish Kapoor, PW- 66 Inspector Inderpal Singh, PW-62 Arjun Singh, PW-8 Dharminder Singh and PW-74 Nageshwar Rao has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner alongwith another 10 accused is facing trial before the Special Court, SAS Nagar, Mohali in a case arising out of FIR No. 6 dated 8.6.2017 registered under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468, 471, 506/120B IPC and sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-I, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. A large number of PWs have been cited. As many as 76 PWs have already been examined. The trial has been pending since the last about 5 years and directions for expeditious disposal have already been issued by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2022 passed in CRM-M-23331-2019 which have also been got extended on request of the Presiding Officer. The trial Court has virtually been proceeding on day-to-day basis having regard to the fact that a large number of accused have been arrayed and a large number of witnesses have been cited by the prosecution.
3. The witnesses sought to be recalled had been appearing before the trial Court on several dates and while they were cross-examined by some co-accused, some other voluntarily opted not to cross-examine. The petitioner Surinderpal Singh and co-accused Swaranjit Kaur did not come forward either to cross-examine or to voluntarily give up their right of cross-examination and consequently, the trial Court upon noticing that a large number of opportunities have already been afforded to the petitioner treated the cross-examination by petitioner as 'Nil' of aforesaid 8 witnesses on different dates between 4.1.2023 and 20.2.2023. While cross-examination of PW-20 Divleen Singh, PW-53 Surinder Kumar and PW-57 Sanjeev Kumar Gupta of petitioner was treated as 'Nil' on 4.1.2023; cross-examination of PW-71 Ashish Kapoor and PW-66 Inspector Inderpal Singh by petitioner was treated as 'Nil' on 5.1.2023; and cross-examination of PW-8 Dharminder Singh, PW-62 Arjun Singh and PW-74 Nageshwar Rao by petitioner was treated as 'Nil' on 20.2.2023. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 20.2.2023 (Annexure P-3) and was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.2.2023 by passing an extensively detailed order by the trial Court, which is assailed by way of filing instant revision petition.
4. The grounds set forth in the application dated 20.2.2023 (Annexure P-3) for recalling the said 8 PWs are that there was some oral understanding between the petitioner and the Presiding Officer before the onset of winter vacation to the effect that the accused shall conduct cross-examination of the witnesses in question on or after 6.1.2023 and accordingly, an application for deferring the cross-examination was filed by the petitioner for deferring the cross-examination till 6.1.2023. It is averred that in the meantime, there was some conflict between the accused/applicant and the Presiding Officer and resultantly the counsel representing the accused/applicant chose not to appear so as to stay out of the conflict and on account of which their cross-examination came to be recorded as "Opportunity given/Nil". It is further averred that since the conflict between the petitioner and the Presiding Off
The right to cross-examine witnesses is not absolute and requires justification; a mere change of counsel does not alone satisfy the criteria for recalling a witness under Section 311 CrPC.
Re-examination - Scope of section 311 Cr.P.C. - Section 311, Cr.P.C. that request for re-examination has been made solely on ground that Senior Counsel has been engaged in place of a Junior Counsel a....
The right to cross-examine is fundamental, but the court's discretion under Section 311 must be exercised judiciously, especially against unreasonable delays in raising procedural issues.
A change of counsel does not justify recalling a witness for further cross-examination; sufficient grounds must be shown to avoid delaying proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner must avail the opportunities given by the court, and a mere change of counsel does not suffice as a reason for not cross-examinin....
The Trial Court has ample/wide power to summon any material witness or person for examination or re-examination in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and this discretio....
The power under Section 311, Cr.P.C. should be exercised with restraint and caution, especially at the final stage of the trial, and delay in filing the application may impact the court's decision.
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.