Allowed

Man Mohan Bansal S/O Late Shri Hari Narayan Ji Bansal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 May 2024CRLMP/1331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a magistrate's order closing their right to cross-examine two prosecution witnesses after an exemption-from-appearance application was allowed. The High Court quashed the order and granted one opportunity for cross-examination on payment of Rs.3,000 cost per witness.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.04.2023 quashed; one opportunity to cross-examine the two prosecution witnesses granted subject to Rs.3,000 cost to each witness.

Man Mohan Bansal S/O Late Shri Hari Narayan Ji… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:25900]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1331/2024

¶4

Man Mohan Bansal S/o Late Shri Hari Narayan Ji Bansal, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Plot No. 108, Gom Defence Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

¶5

Smt. Kamla Bansal W/o Shri Man Mohan Bansal, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Plot No. 108, Gom Defence Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

Nand Lal S/o Kimat Mal, R/o 235, Subhash Colony Shastri Nagar, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. Mr. Man Mohan Bansan, petitioner No.1 in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶13

Order

¶14

30/05/2024

¶15

By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.59/2009 whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioners for recalling the two prosecution witnesses, namely, Ramchandra Aswani and Avinash Sharma for their cross-examination has been dismissed.

[2024:RJ-JP:25900]

[CRLMP-1331/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2, who is wife of petitioner No.1, was suffering from Covid and on the relevant day, petitioner No.1 himself was having fever. In these circumstances, an application for exemption from personal appearance was filed and same was accepted by the learned trial Magistrate but simultaneously, right of cross-examination was closed on the ground that petitioners were being represented by their counsel. It is submitted that right of cross-examination in a criminal case is legal right of accused and same should not be denied without giving proper opportunity. It is submitted that in petitioners' matter, right of cross-examination was closed on the same day. Learned counsel submits that for just decision of the case, the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses is very essential and if the prayer of the petitioners is not accepted and cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is not allowed to be conducted, petitioners would not be able to defend their case properly and serious prejudice would be caused to them. He therefore, prays that in the interest of justice, the petitioners may be given one opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses.

¶20

Learned State counsel opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶21

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the interest of justice, the petitioners are given one opportunity for cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses subject to the payment of cost which is Rs.3,000/- to each witness. Accordingly, the impugned order

¶22

[2024:RJ-JP:25900]

¶23

[CRLMP-1331/2024]

¶24

dated 15.04.2023 is quashed and set aside. The instant misc. petition is allowed. The petitioners are given one opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses before the learned trial court on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to each witness. The trial court shall fix a date for the purpose of cross-examination of the two prosecution witnesses by the accused petitioners and shall summon the aforesaid witnesses accordingly. On that date, the petitioners shall make payment of cost to these two prosecution witnesses. It is made clear that only one opportunity shall be given to the petitioners for the purpose of cross-examination of the aforesaid witness. In case, the petitioners do not make payment of cost to the prosecution witnesses or fail to complete the cross-examination in one chance, as directed above, the present order shall lose its currency.

¶25

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J

¶26

CHARU SONI /23

Man Mohan Bansal S/O Late Shri Hari Narayan Ji Bansal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Man Mohan Bansal S/O Late Shri Hari Narayan Ji Bansal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Smt. Saroj Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramcharan Son of Shri Thandi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar S/O Shri Babulal Agarwal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sabir Hussain Ansari Son of Shri Abdul Latif Ansari, Vs State of Rajasthan

Prashant Jat Son of Late Shri Ramsahai Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pawan Kumar Gaud Son of Durgashankar, Vs State of Rajasthan