Order on Board

22-02-2021 Heard.

1. This petition has been brought against the order dated 06-02-2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Raipur in S.T. No.57/2018 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is facing trial under Section 302, 201, 34 and Section 120B of the IPC. The Investigating Officer ASI Likhan Singh Verma has been examined as PW-17, but some questions with respect to the merg intimation and the memorandum statement of the applicant could not be clearly put to the Investigating Officer in cross-examination. On this basis prayer was made to recall the Investigating Officer (PW-17) for re-cross-examination, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The impugned order passed is erroneous and arbitrary. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court delivered in the case of U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and another Vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529; Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 461 and Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741 and it is submitted that the applicant is entitled for fair trial, therefore, he should be given opportunity to re-cross- examine the Investigating Officer (PW-17). It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the applicant be granted relief.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission and submits that the Investigating Officer ASI Likhan Singh Verma (PW-17) has been throughly and exhaustively examined by the applicant before his cross-examination was closed by the trial Court. The applicant is adopting delaying tactics so that the trial against him does not conclude. It is also submitted that a revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. shall not lie against any order passed by the trial Court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam in Criminal Appeal No.486-487 of 2009 decided on 18 March, 2009 that order passed on application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order. Hence, this revision petition is without any substance which may be dismissed.

4. Considered on the submissions.

5. On perusal of the copy of the deposition of ASI Lakhan Singh Verma (PW-17), it would be seen that this witness examined on 19-12-2019 and he was cross-examined at length until the day was off. This witness was again cross-examined by the applicant side on 01-01-2020 and then his cross- examination could not be completed on that date, hence, he was again cross- examined on 21-01-2020 and his deposition was completed on that date. Counsel appearing for the applicant has been thus given full opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

6. As regards the submission regarding the questions that have not been put in cross-examination to this witness, considered on the suggestive questions that have been separately given by a memo of submission by the applicant side. On the memorandum statement of the applicant in Ex.-P/11 there has been questions amply put in cross-examination in paragraph 7. The suggestive question mentioned only about giving same suggestions which does not appear to be necessary and the applicant side is at liberty to make submission in his arguments on the point of the memorandum as to what shall be admissible and what shall be not admissible in evidence. Another ground in the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is regarding putting questions to the witness on Ex.-P/47, the merg intimation. Again on looking at the suggested questions it is found that such questions would only be repetition of the questions which have been already put to the witness in his cross- examination and further, the applicant has opportunity to make his submission in the arguments. Hence, I am of this view that the applicant has been given fair and full opportunity to cross-examine th