SUSHIL ANSAL Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court in case FIR No.207/2016 registered at police station Tilak Marg titled State vs Dinesh Chand Sharma whereby an application of the petitioner under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as Cr P C) was dismissed.

(2.) It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that PW38 Mr.Amit Roy, DCP is an important witness in the present matter and the erstwhile learned counsel Mr.Siddharth Kashyap had chosen not to cross examine the said witness despite an opportunity being granted to him; but thereafter new counsel was appointed and after going through the record, he was of the view cross examination of PW38 is necessary, hence an application under Section 311 Cr P C was filed. Such application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Trial Court with the following reasoning:-

(3.) It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner initially the charge sheet was filed against Dinesh Chand Sharma, the Ahlmad of the Court against whom there were allegations of tempering and missing of the Court record, but later on supplementary charge sheets was filed. The second supplementary charge sheet was filed by DCP Amit Roy (PW38) but the petitioner was never arrayed as an accused by him and it was only in third supplementary charge sheet prepared and filed by Inspector R.S. Chauhan, the petitioner herein was summoned as an accused. Investigating Officer Inspector R S Chauhan who had charge sheeted the petitioner has since expired, hence it is argued PW38 is the only Investigating Officer, who needs to be cross examined as to the seizure of such tempered documents and qua conspiracy. It is also submitted if the petitioner is allowed to cross examine PW38, it shall not cause any prejudice to the prosecution. It is further argued PW38 is a material witness as various documents relating to the petitioner were seized by him and even otherwise it is the duty casted upon the Court to safeguard the accused and allow him to examine and cross-examine the witnesses per Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also submitted petitioner is 84 years of age and could not properly comprehend as to if the cross examination of PW38 was essential for the just decision of the case.