Ram Parvesh Tiwari v. State & Anr

ORDER o/o

24.09.2010 CrI. M.A. No. 15547/2010 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CrI. M.C. No. 3051/2010 & CrI. M.A. No. 15546/2010 fStav) Notice. Mr. Navin Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the State. The petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C with the prayer that the order dated 01.5.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated

01.5.2010 has stated that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed by petitioner for recalling the PWl, R.S. Sharma/complainant when the case was at the stage of recording of the statement of the accused. It is further mentioned in the said order that the petitioner came to know Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. that the PWl, R.S. Sharma/complainant has admitted in other case that the complainant company has no concern with jhuggi or its allotment and that the complainant company has filed a list of propertiesbut that list did not mention the property in question and that the petitioner wanted to put these documents to the witness in the cross-examination. Vide impugned order dated

01.5.2010, learned counsel for the complainant had submitted that they are not denying at all these documents and if the certified copies of these documents are placed on record, the complainant will admit these documents and therefore there is no need to produce the PW-1, R.S. Sharma/complainant for his cross-examination. The Trial Court has held that PWl, R.S. Sharma/complainant has already been cross-examined at length on 22.2.2010 by the counsel for the petitioner. Since the witness was already cross-examinedat length, no order for recalling the said witness was passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Heard. I have gone through the order dated 01.5.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court and I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 01.5.2010. There is ground for recalling the PWl, R.S. Sharma/complainant when he has already been cross-examined at length on 22.2.2010 by counsel for the petitioner. There is no merit in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. S.L.BHAYANAJ SEPTEMBER 24, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 3051/2010 RAM PARVESH TIWARI Petitioner Through ivir. [Planish Gandhi, Adv. versus STATE & ANR Respondents Through |Vlr. Navin Sharma, counsel for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L.BHAYANA