Skip to content


Prahlad Singh Vs. Nand Kishore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Appeal No. 261 of 1968
Judge
Reported in4(1968)DLT557
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 435
AppellantPrahlad Singh
RespondentNand Kishore
Advocates:Nem
Excerpt:
- - he bad also summoned the file containing the previous statement......under sections 148/149 323, indian penal code. the petitioner examined his witnesses, including shri bhoop singb, p. w. 5. at the examination of shri bhoop singh, the petitioner made a request to the court that he may be permitted to cross-examine the witness. that request was allowed by the learned magistrate. the petitioner made an application to the court that the statement of shri bhoop singh recorded under section 202, criminal procedure code, in an earlier complaint filed by him, which was dismissed in default in appearance, may be summoned and the witness may be confronted with his previous statement. the requisite file was summoned. the petitioner than made an application to the court for summoning the witness (or purposes of cross-examination. that application was rejected......
Judgment:

Om Purkash, J.

(1) This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Jugde.

(2) The petititioner, Prahlad Singn, had filed a complaint under sections 323, 325, 247, 148 and 149. Indian Penal Code against the respondents. Preliminary evidence under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code was recorded and the respondents were summoned to stand trial under sections 148/149 323, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner examined his witnesses, including Shri Bhoop Singb, P. W. 5. At the examination of Shri Bhoop Singh, the petitioner made a request to the Court that he may be permitted to cross-examine the witness. That request was allowed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner made an application to the Court that the statement of Shri Bhoop Singh recorded under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, in an earlier complaint filed by him, which was dismissed in default in appearance, may be summoned and the witness may be confronted with his previous statement. The requisite file was summoned. The petitioner than made an application to the Court for summoning the witness (or purposes of cross-examination. That application was rejected.

(3) The petitioner went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge against the order rejecting his application of summoning the witness, The revision petition was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, has made a recommendation to this Court that the order of the Magistrate rejecting the application of the petitioner for summoning the witness may be set aside and he may be directed to summon the witness The recommendation made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be sound. The learned Magistrate had permitted the petitioner to cross.examination the witness. He bad also summoned the file containing the previous statement. It was essential that the witness should be re-summoned for being confronted with his previous statment. The learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner for re-summoning the witness.

(4) The reference is accepted. The revision petition is allowed. The order of the Magistrate rejecting the application of the petitioner for resummoning Shri Bhoop Singh is set aside. The learned Magis Irate is directed to re summon Shri Bhoop Singh, Witness, for purposes of cross-examination.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //