CRL.M.C.--6301/2019. Case: RAVI Vs. STATE OF DELHI. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.M.C.--6301/2019 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 06, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
+ CRL.M.C. 6301/2019
Date of Decision: 06.12.2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Advocate
Versus
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State with SI Dheer Singh, P.S. Farsh Bazar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 42084/2019 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 6301/2019
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside/recall of the impugned order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS), Karkardooma Courts, whereby the petitioner’s application to recall the witness Chetan Sharma (PW-for cross examination in FIR No. 183/2011 under Section 307 IPC Sections 25/25(54)/59/307 of Arms Act, 1959 P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi dismissed.
CRL.M.C. 6301/2019 Page 1 of 4
could not be cross-examined on 18.03.2016, as counsel for the petitioner was not available on that day. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed, which was allowed, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/ The petitioner/accused on account of his financial position could deposit the cost and moved an application for waiving the costs Rs.10,000/-. The said application however, came to be dismissed order dated 20.01.2017. A subsequent application was moved to recall of the aforesaid witness, came to be dismissed by the impugned order passed on 12.02.2019 on the ground that the petitioner on previous occasion failed to deposit the aforesaid cost.
3. Learned APP for the State submits that the case is at the stage trial and the Investigating Officer is yet to be examined.
4. The scope of Section 311 Cr.PC was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of P.Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P. reported as (2012) 7 SCC 56 , wherein it was held as under:-
“20. Grant of fairest opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence was the object of every fair trial, observed this Court in Hoffman Andreas v. Inspector of Customs, Amritsar, (2000)
10 SCC 430. The following passage is in this regard apposite:
“6. …In such circumstances, if the new Counsel thought to have the material witnesses further examined, the Court could adopt latitude and a liberal view in the interest of justice, particularly when the Court has unbridled powers in the matter as enshrined in Section 311of the Code. After all the
CRL.M.C. 6301/2019 Page 2 of 4
afford the...
To continue reading
Request your trial