KATARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash order dated 4.1.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Chandauli in criminal case No. 101 of 2009, State v. Katari Singh under section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Kotwali Chaudauli, District Chandauli, whereby application for adjournment moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected and opportunity of cross-examination of prosecution witness S.I. Jagdamba Prasad Dwivedi was closed.

(2.) The facts are that on 4.1.2011, S.I. Jagdamba Prasad Dwivedi was examination-in-chief in the aforesaid case. An application for adjournment was moved on behalf of the applicant Katari Singh for adjournment seeking time for the purpose of cross-examination. The said application was rejected on the ground that the witness was a police personnel and it was difficult to summon him again. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant had been repeatedly seeking adjournments. The impugned order does not reflect any such allegation. When the counsel for the defence sought an adjournment on the ground that he was unable to cross-examine the witness on that date, the trial Court should have considered the request and if it deemed fit, certain cost could have been imposed to defray the expenses of the witness. The application for adjournment cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the witness was a police personnel and it would be difficult to summon him again. When the witness was a police personnel, there was no difficulty in summoning him again or the trial Court could have issued the summons for the next date then and there and should have got it received by the witness so that there was no problem in service of notice. The offence under N.D.P.S. Act is a serious offence entailing grave penal consequences. In such matters, right of cross-examination cannot be tampered with lightly. In these circumstances, the order rejecting the application for adjournment and closing the opportunity of cross-examination cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.