Satnam Singh and others vs State of U.P. and another

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.

No notice is issued to private respondent in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private respondent to apply for variation or modification of this order, if he feels so aggrieved.

This revision is directed against the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 1, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 589 of 2003, State v. Satnam and others, under sections 302 and 307 IPC, whereby the application 53B for recalling the order dated 9.4.2010 closing the opportunity of crossexamination of PW2 Kashmir Singh was rejected.

The facts are that PW2 Kashmir Singh was crossexamined partly on 24.11.2006. Subsequently, he did notappear for crossexamination and went abroad and thereafter, Kashmir Singh appeared in the Court on 19.4.2010.

Learned Counsel for the revisionists made a statement before the Court that he would crossexamine the witness after lunch. When the case was taken up after lunch, the Counsel for the accused did not turn up to 2.20 p.m. and thereafter, the opportunity for crossexamination was closed. The application 53B for recalling the order dated 19.4.2010 was rejected, hence this revision. Learned Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the accused persons cannot be held responsible for the fact that the witness appeared after four years for crossexamination. On the date on which PW2 appeared for crossexamination, learned Counsel for the defence was busy in some other Court and unfortunately, he could not reach the Trial Court by 2.20 p.m. and for this reason, the opportunity for cross examination of PW.2 should not have been closed by the Trial Court.

It is further submitted that when the application for recall of PW2 for further cross examination was filed, the same should not have been rejected by the trial judge. In a case under section 302 IPC, the rights of the accused should not have been fore closed by passing such a harsh order.

Learned AGA supported the impugned order.

On the date on which PW2 appeared for crossexamination, the Counsel for accused could not appear in the Court and therefore, opportunity of crossexamination was closed by the Trial Court. When the application for recalling PW2 for crossexamination was moved, learned Trial Court should have recalled PW2 for crossexamination and should not have closed opportunity of crossexamination on technical and frivolous grounds. Crossexamination is a valuable right given to the accused to elicit the truth and cannot be foreclosed for the fault of the Counsel. There is no need repeating that no one should be condemned unheard which may amount to grave miscarriage of justice.

In these circumstances, I find that impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

The revision is allowed.

The impugned order dated 21.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 1 is set aside and learned Judge is directed to provide an opportunity to the accused persons for crossexamination of PW2, Kashmir Singh.

I may also remind the trial Court that though the Fast Track Courts are meant to dispose off Sessions Trial at a quick pace but it does not mean that procedure of trial should be short circuited. More often, a shortcut sometimes becomes a longcut.

Revision Allowed.