Full Text
Translation output
)
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2560/2011
SUNIL & ORS. ..... Petitioners STATE
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2560/2011
SUNIL & ORS. ..... Petitioners STATE
CORAM:
Through: Mr. Ravin Rao and Mr. Prashant Tomer, Advocates.
VERSUS
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for the State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
05.08.2011 Crl.
M.A. No. 9162/2011 (Exe.)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Crl. M.C. No. 2560/2011 Notice.
Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned counsel enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State.
Vide this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13th July, 2011 whereby the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the
Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for the State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
05.08.2011 Crl.
M.A. No. 9162/2011 (Exe.)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Crl. M.C. No. 2560/2011 Notice.
Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned counsel enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State.
Vide this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13th July, 2011 whereby the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the
CRL.M.C. 2560/2011 page 1 of3
~ - ;i 2011:DHC:11604 2__ application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of witnesses PW2 and PW4 for cross-examination.
The aforesaid two witnesses were examined, however, learned counsel for the petitioner was struck up in the High Court, therefore, he could not cross-examine them. Thereafter, he moved an application for recalling cross-examination.
Learned APP for the State strongly objects the same and states that two material witnesses were available and examined by the Court and at the time of cross-examination the learned counsel for the petitioner deliberately did not appear in the Court and thus he is playing tactics to delay the matter. Apart from that she submits that there are specific directions of High Court to complete the proceedings in time bound limit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he was struck up in High Court on that date, therefore, he was unable to cross-examine the witnesses and it was unintentionally but beyond his control.
Though, I do not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the interest of justice, I set aside the order dated 13th July, 2011 and further direct the
~ - ;i 2011:DHC:11604 2__ application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of witnesses PW2 and PW4 for cross-examination.
The aforesaid two witnesses were examined, however, learned counsel for the petitioner was struck up in the High Court, therefore, he could not cross-examine them. Thereafter, he moved an application for recalling cross-examination.
Learned APP for the State strongly objects the same and states that two material witnesses were available and examined by the Court and at the time of cross-examination the learned counsel for the petitioner deliberately did not appear in the Court and thus he is playing tactics to delay the matter. Apart from that she submits that there are specific directions of High Court to complete the proceedings in time bound limit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he was struck up in High Court on that date, therefore, he was unable to cross-examine the witnesses and it was unintentionally but beyond his control.
Though, I do not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the interest of justice, I set aside the order dated 13th July, 2011 and further direct the
CRL.M.C. 2560/2011 page 2 of3
-~~- _____., ;__ Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to give him one last opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, subject to payment of cost of ~20,000/- to be deposited with Juvenile justice Board for the welfare of the juveniles, within three days. The proof of deposit of the same be placed on record.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that gth August, 2011 is the next date fixed before learned ACMM.
Accordingly, list for directions before learned ACMM on gth
August, 2011.
Crl.
M.A. No. 9161/2011 (Stay)
In view of the order passed in Crl. M.C. 2560/2011, the present application becomes infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of
AUGUST 05, 2011 )1_1(
-~~- _____., ;__ Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to give him one last opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, subject to payment of cost of ~20,000/- to be deposited with Juvenile justice Board for the welfare of the juveniles, within three days. The proof of deposit of the same be placed on record.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that gth August, 2011 is the next date fixed before learned ACMM.
Accordingly, list for directions before learned ACMM on gth
August, 2011.
Crl.
M.A. No. 9161/2011 (Stay)
In view of the order passed in Crl. M.C. 2560/2011, the present application becomes infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of
AUGUST 05, 2011 )1_1(
CRL.M.C. 2560/2011
SURESH KAIT, J page 3 of3 -- : ~ --'< -- ' ~ - '' ~
---';
SURESH KAIT, J page 3 of3 -- : ~ --'< -- ' ~ - '' ~
---';
JUDGMENT