Hoffmann Andreas vs Land Customs Amritsar

S.S. Nijjar, J. (Oral)

During the pendency of the trial, the advocate of the accusedpetitioner passed away. This necessitated the petitioner in engaging another counsel. The new counsel made an application for recalling the witnesses for further crossexamination. The trial was, however, concluded and the petitioner was convicted. The conviction was upheld by this Court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 16th September 1999, the Supreme Court gave the following directions :

"1. The Court shall summon PW1, PW2 and PW3 to be crossexamined again on behalf of the accused.

The evidence already brought on record will remain as part of the evidence in the case. After the defence counsel availing himself of the opportunity to further examine the three witnesses, if prosecution wants to adduce further evidence it is open to the Court to grant permission for the same. Accused shall then be called upon to enter on his defence.

After collecting such evidence, if any adduced by the accused, the trial Judge shall dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law and untrammelled by any findings or observations made in the judgment of the trial Court or that of the High Court.

Thereafter, the Supreme Court observed :

"It is needless to say that the trial Judge shall recall the witnesses at the earliest, so that, this old case must be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and on a priority basis."

In spite of these directions, the trial has not concluded till today. A period of one year has elapsed. Repeatedly, the petitioner had made applications for further crossexamination of the witnesses on day to day basis. The matter was not taken up or was left incomplete due to paucity of time. The present petition has been filed with a prayer firstly to transfer the case from the court of the Additional Judge, whose name is mentioned in the prayer clause; secondly, for a direction to the transferee Court to dispose of the pending applications; and thirdly, to give a timebound schedule for the disposal of the petitioner''s case. It is submitted by Mr. Dawar that he needs only 5 to 6 hours to complete the crossexamination. He, therefore, seeks a particular day on which the crossexamination can be completed. Mr. Sharma states that the matter has already been transferred to another learned Judge.

In view of the above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri K.C. Puri is now directed to permit Mr. Dawar, counsel for the petitioner, to further crossexamine the witnesses that may be recalled on one or two particular dates. Mr. Dawar at this stage states that the matter is already fixed for 14th of September, 2000. The prosecution is, therefore, directed to make available PW1, PW2 and PW3 for further crossexamination by Mr. Dawar on 14th September, 2000. If for any reason, further crossexamination is not completed on 14th of September, 2000, the same be continued on 15th September, 2000 and if necessary on 16th September, 2000. It is no longer necessary to give any direction as to the mode of crossexamination as allegations had been made against the Presiding Officer from whose Court the matter has already been transferred. Suffice it to say, the petitioner is entitled to cross examine the witnesses in the manner to be determined by the counsel for the petitioner. It has already been observed by the Supreme Court that "after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and Courts would afford the opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible."

In view of the above, the trial Court shall permit Mr. Dawar to cross examine the witnesses in the manner he deems fit in accordance with law.

With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.

JUDGMENT Dasti.