Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi @ Gurpartap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/setting aside the order dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned ASJ/JSC, Tarn Taran, vide which, the application for extension of time to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) has been dismissed and further prayer is for quashing/setting aside the order dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned ASJ/JSC, Tarn Taran whereby application for grant of another opportunity to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed upon the petitioner has been dismissed in case bearing FIR No.29 dated 23.02.2015 under Section 21 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after presentation of the challan, charges were framed on 07.12.2015 and PW-1, namely, SI Prabhjit Singh and PW-2 ASI Balwinder Singh appeared before the trial Court. Their examination-in-chief was recorded and it was the first date, after framing of the charges, when the prosecution witnesses had appeared and on the first date of hearing, the opportunity to cross-
Non-payment of costs for cross-examination leads to forfeiture of participation rights but does not result in automatic dismissal of the suit.
The accused's right to adduce evidence in support of their defense is a valuable right and must be allowed in the interest of justice.
The right to cross-examine witnesses is a statutory and fundamental right, crucial for ensuring a fair trial, necessitating courts to allow such opportunities to the accused.
Fair trial principles mandate that the opportunity for cross-examination of significant witnesses cannot be arbitrarily denied, aligning with the objectives of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
Recall of witness – Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained.
Non-payment of costs can result in forfeiture of the right to further prosecute the suit or defence.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
