NOOR JAHAN Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 7.8.2009 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sectin 311 of Cr. P. C. for recalling the prosecutrix(PW-9) for further cross-examination was dismissed.

(2.) The impugned order has been challenged primarily on the ground that the main counsel was not present when PW-5 to PW-11 were examined on 22nd of January, 2009 and, therefore, they were cross-examined by the junior/associate Shri Gaurav Vashisth, who being less experienced and due to lack of knowledge could not put material questions to the prosecurix.

(3.) A perusal of the record of the trial court would show that the prosecutrix was examined on 22nd of January, 2009. On that day the petitioner was represented by her counsel Shri Gaurav Vashisht and Shri R. K. Kochar. A perusal of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix would show that she was cross-examined by Shri Gaurav Vashisth, Advcoate. Thus, not only Shri Gaurav Vashisht who actually cross-examined the prosecutrix, Shri R. K. Kochar, senor counsel representing the petitioner was also present at the time of cross-examination of the witness. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact Mr. Kochar was not present in the trial court on 22nd of January, 2009. Admittedly no application was filed by the petitioner before the trial court for correction of the proceedings dated 22.1.2009 on the ground that Shri R. K. Kochar, Advocate was not present in the court on that date and that his presence has wrongly been recorded in the order there. In the absence of such an application, the record of the proceedings has to be taken as accurate and the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that Shri R. K. Kochar, Advocate was actually not present in the court on that date. It is not open to a party to dispute the correction of the judicial proceedings before a Superior Court, without first moving the court concerned, by bringing the inaccuracy to its knowledge and seeking rectification of the error, which according to him had crept into the proceedings. The Superior Court does not know what had transpired and who was present before the Court below, on a particular date. This fact being in the knowledge of concerned Court alone, the discrepancy, if any, in the proceedings, should be got removed when the matter is still fresh in the memory of the Judge who recorded the proceedings. Unless it is done, the record of judicial proceedings remains sacrosanct and cannot be disputed as regards the facts stated therein.