S K KAPOOR Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21/8/2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi rejecting his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C, seeking re-examination of the witnesses produced by the respondent/complainant/ MCD, namely, PW1 Shri Govind Ram, Licensing Inspector, MCD and PW2 Shri H.K. Sharma, ALO, MCD.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed as the petitioner/accused was Ignorant about the practice and procedure of the court and could not cross-examine the witnesses when such an opportunity was granted to him by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In this regard, he draws the attention of this Court to the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. A perusal of the said application shows that apart from making an averment to the effect that the petitioner/accused was ignorant about the practice and procedure of the court, it was stated that he was not provided an amicus curiae to assist him and he never engaged any counsel earlier.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is stated to be a graduate, who retired from the Army as a Captain. On inquiry, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appearing in the complaint case on his own and that prior to filing of the aforesaid application, no request was ever made by him to the court for being provided with any legal service to assist him. It is mentioned in the impugned order that while the aforesaid two witnesses were examined on 24.7.2008, the aforesaid application came to be filed by the petitioner only on 6.7.2009, i.e., after a gap of about one year. Pertinently, in that one year, 14 dates were fixed in the case, after which the evidence of the respondent/complainant and that of the petitioner/accused was finally closed and when the matter was at the stage of addressing arguments, the petitioner filed the above application.