SUNIL KUMAR BHATNAGAR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PW 1 Ms. Mamta, Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Roorkee, was in the witness box before the trial court. Her examination -in -chief was recorded. She was also cross -examined by learned counsel for the accused at length. The same could not be concluded on 17.02.2014. PW 1 again came to the Court on 04.03.2014. When learned defence counsel asked a question, learned counsel for CBI objected. The objection was sustained. Thereafter, the same question was repeated in the cross -examination, and the permission to ask the same was again denied by learned Presiding Officer. At that stage, learned defence counsel made a request that he would move an application. The case was again taken up in the post lunch session. PW 1 was not further cross -examined on behalf of the accused and, therefore, learned trial court closed the evidence of PW 1 and fixed the next date for remaining prosecution evidence. Aggrieved against such an order dated 04.03.2014 of the trial court, present criminal revision was filed.

(2.) IT may be mentioned here at the very outset that once a question is denied by the Presiding Officer, repetition of the same question again to the same prosecution witness by learned defence counsel, was not proper. It's a different matter that the question thus asked by learned defence counsel in the instant case was a relevant question.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused (revisionist herein) undertook before this Court that he would ask only those eight questions to PW 1, if granted opportunity to cross -examine the said witness.