ANURAG SOOD Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A.786/2017

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 3rd Nov., 2016 is bad in law. She has submitted that the case pertains to robbery of Rs.8,000.00 and mobile phone; which is alleged to be recovered from the petitioner after about 19 days. She has further submitted that the complainant Sameer Saifi was examined as PW-9 before the Trial Court and was cross examined on 12th April, 2016. She has further submitted that later it was transpired that certain questions regarding the nature of weapon could not be put to PW-9 and has submitted that the cross-examination of PW-9 is sine qua non. She has further submitted that to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to further cross examine PW-9.

(3.) Learned APP for State has vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was represented through counsel. He has submitted that changing of counsel by the petitioner does not confer him any right to recall PW-9 for further cross examination and prays that the present petition be dismissed.