Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Jutshi@Bunti v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC1 Feb 2018CRL.M.C./416/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition challenging an order where the Trial Court overruled the defence counsel's objection to the Public Prosecutor intervening during cross-examination. The High Court found the Trial Court's subsequent use of question-and-answer method dispelled apprehensions of disturbance and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as no interference was called for after the Trial Court adopted the question-and-answer method.

Sanjay Kumar Jutshi@Bunti Vs the State (Nct of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~44

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 01.02.2018 + CRL.M.C. 416/2018 SANJAY KUMAR JUTSHI@BUNTI ..... Petitioner Through : versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through :

¶4

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr Bankim K.Kulshrestha and Mr V.S.Nirmal, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Mukesh Kumar, Addl. PP for the State. ACP Rajender Bhatia, PS V.Vihar. ACP Rajender Bakshi.

¶6

CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

¶7

JUDGMENT 01.02.2018

¶8

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

Crl. M.A.1600/2018(exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 416/2018& Crl. M.A. 1601/2018(stay)

¶12

CRL.M.C. 416/2018

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

The The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2018, whereby the objection of the counsel for the petitioner/Defence, to the objection raised by the Public Prosecutor with regard to the nature of questions being put, has been rejected.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time of cross-examination of the witness, there is repeated interference by the Public Prosecutor, whereby the entire thought-process is disturbed, and the question is not permitted to be completed.

¶16

In the impugned order the Trial Court has noticed as under:-

¶17

“....... At this stage, learned counsel states that when he is cross-examining the witness, learned APP shall not speak in between in his crossexamination. The objection of the defence counsel is over ruled as the learned Prosecutor has a right to object to nature of questions put to the witness.

¶18

It is observed that after this objection of counsel for defence was overruled, the Trial Court has proceeded to record further crossexamination in question and answer form.

¶19

In my view, in case question-answer form method is followed by the Trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it shall set at rest any apprehension that the defence counsel may have with regard to him not being permitted to complete his questions before any objection vis a vis the same is raised.

¶20

CRL.M.C. 416/2018

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Since the said course has been followed by the learned judge after the objection was raised, as is noticed in the impugned order, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

¶23

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶25

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 1, 2018
‘ rs’

¶26

CRL.M.C. 416/2018

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Sanjay Kumar Jutshi@Bunti v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Jutshi@Bunti v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Raghunath & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Amit Sharma & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Madhulika S Rastogi Vs State (Govt of NCT New Delhi)

Sonu Vs State(Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Umang Sharma & Ors. Vs State & Anr.