The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday held that discretion of the Trial Court, which, ex facie, has been exercised judiciously on the basis of relevant materials, is not to be interfered with either in revisional jurisdiction or under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Sections 401/397 of the Code for quashing of order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling of witnesses for further cross-examination has been rejected.
The counsel for the petitioner said that he has engaged a Senior Advocate in the said case before magistrate and the cross-examination done by the earlier counsel is very scanty and, therefore, the witnesses need to be recalled for further cross-examination. The CJM in his order said that “no new evidence can be elucidated from these witnesses by recalling them as they have already deposed extensively. The settled position of law laid down in Section 311 Cr.PC is that it should be resorted only to find out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. Allowing the accused to further cross examination the PWs will in no way lead to finding out the truth which is already on record. If the accused is allowed now to further cross examine the PWs it will amount to allowing the accused to cross examine the witnesses twice on the same set of examination-in-chief which is not permissible as per law.”
Acting upon the plea, the single bench of Chief Justice Ajai Lamba observed that the petitioner has not been able to show abuse of the process of Court in any manner in rejecting the application by the trial Court so as to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the considered opinion of this Court, no such circumstance has been shown that the application ought to have been allowed to secure the ends of justice.
Likewise, perusal of the application filed before the trial Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and perusal of the impugned order do not, in any way, indicate that the impugned order is illegal, incorrect or improper in any manner. This Court does not trace any illegality in the procedure followed by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The Gauhati High Court held that the order of the trial Court has exhibited judicious application of mind while rejecting the application. Relevant and necessary aspects of the matter have been taken into account and as a result the petition was dismissed.
-India Legal Bureau