Allowed

Vishwa Mittar Garg v. CBI Chd

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Aug 2010CRM-M/16953/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC to set aside an order denying a second opportunity to cross-examine a material prosecution witness, directing the trial court to grant it to ensure the case is decided on merits and avoid manifest injustice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; trial Court directed to allow one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW Somnath.

Vishwa Mittar Garg Vs CBI Chd — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-16953 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-16953 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.8.2010

Vishwa Mittar Garg

......Petitioner

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh

¶9

.......Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr.T.S.Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr.J.S.Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI and to afford one opportunity by recalling witness Som Nath for crossexamining him in the case RC No. 24/96 dated 30.4.1996, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station CBI, Chandigarh.

¶16

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW -12 Somnath is the only material witness in this case. His examination-in-chief was recorded on 12.2.2009 but his crossexamination was deferred as the counsel for the petitioner was not

¶17

Criminal Misc. No.M-16953 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶18

available. The adjournment was granted to the petitioner subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost. On the adjourned date, two Pws were present. One PW was cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner but PW Somnath could not be examined. In these circumstances, cross-examination of PW Somnath was treated as NIL. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that in the interest of justice only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to enable him to cross-examine PW Somnath otherwise, the petitioner, who is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1996, would suffer injustice.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed this petition and has submitted that despite the opportunity having been granted to the petitioner he had failed to cross-examine PW Somnath.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶21

In the present case, the petitioner was allowed opportunity to cross-examine PW Somnath but his counsel failed to do so. Although the petitioner was required to have acted with due diligence and cross-examine the witness on the dates he appeared before the trial Court but the petitioner, who is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1996 would suffer manifest injustice, in case he is not allowed to cross-examine material prosecution witness PW Somnath. Moreover, in case the petitioner is allowed to cross-

¶22

¶23

Criminal Misc. No.M-16953 of 2010 (O&M)

¶24

examine PW Somnath, the case would be decided on merits. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. Duty to do justice is paramount.

¶25

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and trial Court is directed to allow one opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to cross-examine PW Somnath.

¶26

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶27

August 25, 2010 anita

Vishwa Mittar Garg v. CBI Chd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwa Mittar Garg v. CBI Chd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manu Sareen and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Taj Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Satwinder Singh @ Ghugga Vs State of Punjab

Sanjiv and Anr. Vs Mahender Partap

Baljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Lovleen Garg Vs Albel Singh etc.