Dismissed

Sandeep Gurang v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Apr 2014CRM-M/12688/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an order declining recall of a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination. The Court held that mere change of counsel or vague pleas are insufficient grounds for recall and granted liberty to file a fresh application with specific reasons.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file fresh application for recall of witness by apprising the court of relevant questions left to be put.

Sandeep Gurang Vs State of Punjab — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-12688 of 2014 Date of decision : April 11, 2014

Sandeep Gurang

... Petitioner

vs.

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Surinder Gupta, J

¶11

The petitioner seek quashing of order 31.3.2014 (Annexure P/3) whereby the application of petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-call PW-6 HC Kanwar Raj Kumar for further cross examination was declined.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that PW HC Kanwar Raj Kumar was not thoroughly cross-examined and many relevant questions were were not put to him in cross-examination. This fact came to the notice of the petitioner when he changed his counsel. Earlier counsel engaged by the petitioner had not cross examined PW-6 HC Kanwar Raj Kumar at length thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner.

¶13

Learned State counsel has argued that PW-6 HC Kanwar Raj Kumar was cross examined on 7.11.2013 and full opportunity was given for his cross examination. The mere fact that the petitioner changed his counsel is not a ground to allow further cross examination of the witness without revealing the relevant questions to be asked to him.

¶14

The petitioner is facing trial under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for recovery of 65 bottles of Rexcof containing 100 ml each. Statement of PW-6 HC Kanwar Raj Kumar was recorded and he was also cross examined by the learned defence counsel. In the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the plea raised by the petitioner is as follows :-

¶15

“2. That earlier PW6 Head Constable Kanwar Raj Kumar who is recovery witness alleged by the prosecution was examined but he was not thoroughly cross examined and many relevant questions were not asked at the time of cross examination which are very much necessary for the just decision of the case.”

¶16

Kumar Deepak 2014.04.28 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-12688 of 2014

¶18

-2-

¶19

I agree with the learned State counsel's submissions that the chance of counsel by the petitioner gives him no reason to re-call any witness for further cross examination without making out a case as to what relevant questions were left to be asked. The order of the trial court suffers from no legal infirmity. Recalling of a witness is not a routine matter. The petitioner has to make out a case for recall of the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by disclosing the reasons for his recall. The plea that many relevant questions were not asked at the time of cross-examination is a vague plea not sufficient for the trial court to order recall of a witness for further cross examination.

¶20

This petition, thus, has no merits and is dismissed.

¶21

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file fresh application making out a case for recall of PW-6 HC Kanwar Raj Kumar by apprising the court of the relevant questions left to be put to him. In the event of any such application being filed, the same shall be decided on merits in accordance with law.

¶22

April 11, 2014 deepak

¶23

(Surinder Gupta) Judge

¶24

Kumar Deepak 2014.04.28 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep Gurang v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Gurang v. State of Punjab

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

Rajni &Anr Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Saurabh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rekha Rani and Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab &Ors

Gurjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.