Full Text
Translation output
$-2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofDecision: March 20, 2015
Date ofDecision: March 20, 2015
CRL.M.C. 2556/2014
PRADEEP MITTAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Sunil, Advocate
PRADEEP MITTAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Sunil, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Anand
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Anand
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR.
JUDGMENT
(ORAL) rrl.M.A.8607/2015 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
CRL.M.C.25S6/2014Crl.M.A.8606/2015 (Stay)
Impugned order of 5'*' May, 2014 gives liberty to petitioner to file an appeal against the objections decided while recording the evidence of
Mr.S.K. Sharma (PW-5).
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order of 30*^ April, 2013 to point out that three documents as referred to in the deposition ofMr.S.K. Sharma (PW-5) as recorded on 5^ May, 2014 was allowed to be put to him, by the predecessor ofthe present Presiding Officer, but still the objections ofthe
State to cross-examine this witness in respect of these three documents
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
CRL.M.C.25S6/2014Crl.M.A.8606/2015 (Stay)
Impugned order of 5'*' May, 2014 gives liberty to petitioner to file an appeal against the objections decided while recording the evidence of
Mr.S.K. Sharma (PW-5).
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order of 30*^ April, 2013 to point out that three documents as referred to in the deposition ofMr.S.K. Sharma (PW-5) as recorded on 5^ May, 2014 was allowed to be put to him, by the predecessor ofthe present Presiding Officer, but still the objections ofthe
State to cross-examine this witness in respect of these three documents
CRL.M.C. 2556/2014 1
2015:DHC:10713 have been erroneously declined by the trial court.
The three documents in respect of which petitioner wants to confront Mr.S.K. Sharma (PW-5) in cross-examination areasunder: -
"Records regarding procurement of materials which usedto besignedbyJ.E./A.E. posted at thesite.
Site instructions register which is technically call site order book."
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had brought to the notice of this Court that earlier, the concerned J.E. and
A.E. were made accused and petitioner has been substituted whereas these documents would show that all the dealing were done by Mr. Kamal Suri, representative of petitioner's-company and the J.E. and A.E. concerned. Thus, it is asserted that petitioner has no role to play.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that instead of sustaining the objections of the State, trial court oughtto have permitted petitioner to cross-examine Mr.S.K. Sharma (PW-5) and the relevance and admissibility of these documents must be left open to be decided at the final hearing.
Accordingly, impugned order sustaining the objections of the respondent-State is hereby quashed with liberty to petitioner to cross-examine Mr. S.K. Sharma (PW-5) in respect of these three documents as well.
This petitionand the application are accordingly disposedof^
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2015 s
2015:DHC:10713 have been erroneously declined by the trial court.
The three documents in respect of which petitioner wants to confront Mr.S.K. Sharma (PW-5) in cross-examination areasunder: -
"Records regarding procurement of materials which usedto besignedbyJ.E./A.E. posted at thesite.
Site instructions register which is technically call site order book."
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had brought to the notice of this Court that earlier, the concerned J.E. and
A.E. were made accused and petitioner has been substituted whereas these documents would show that all the dealing were done by Mr. Kamal Suri, representative of petitioner's-company and the J.E. and A.E. concerned. Thus, it is asserted that petitioner has no role to play.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that instead of sustaining the objections of the State, trial court oughtto have permitted petitioner to cross-examine Mr.S.K. Sharma (PW-5) and the relevance and admissibility of these documents must be left open to be decided at the final hearing.
Accordingly, impugned order sustaining the objections of the respondent-State is hereby quashed with liberty to petitioner to cross-examine Mr. S.K. Sharma (PW-5) in respect of these three documents as well.
This petitionand the application are accordingly disposedof^
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2015 s
CRL.M.C. 2556/2014 Page 2
2015:DHC:10713
2015:DHC:10713