Panna Lal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard on admission.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mungeli, whereby the Learned Special Judge has rejected the application preferred by the Applicant under

Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for calling a prosecution witness, namely, Mamta Mishra (PW5), Principal of Government High School, Barela for further

cross-examination.

Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that there was an election in the High Court Bar Association on

11.10.2017 and 12.10.2017 was the date fixed for counting of the votes and since he (Counsel Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey) was also contesting for the

post of a Member of the Association, he was busy on both the dates and, therefore, he had asked his junior to convey this fact to the Trial Court, but

the Trial Court recorded the statement of Mamta Mishra (PW5), Principal of the school and she was cross-examined by his junior. He further submits

that his junior could not cross-examine Mamta Mishra (PW5) on material points. Therefore, an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was

moved on behalf of the Applicant before the Trial Court, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 23.10.2017. He submits that Mamta

Mishra (PW5) has not been cross-examined on material points. He further submits that looking to the facts, circumstances and gravity of the case, the

application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. may be allowed and he may be permitted to further cross-examine Mamta Mishra (PW5).

Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent opposes the submission put-forth on behalf of the Applicant and submits that Mamta Mishra

(PW5) has been duly cross-examined by the defence counsel on material points and proper opportunity has been afforded by the Trial Court to the

defence counsel to cross-examine Mamta Mishra (PW5). She further submits that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Section

311 of the Cr.P.C.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available including the deposition of Mamta Mishra (PW5)

with due care.

A perusal of the deposition of Mamta Mishra (PW5) makes it clear that she has been duly cross-examined by the defence counsel and proper

opportunity has been afforded by the Trial Court to the defence counsel to cross-examine Mamta Mishra (PW5). Hence, the Trial Court has rightly

rejected the application of the Applicant under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

Thus, I find no merit in the instant revision. The revision is, therefore, dismissed at the motion stage itself.