LAKHAN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under section 397 r/w section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed against the order passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.721/2014 dated 25.08.2015 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has closed the right of accused for cross -examination of prosecution witnesses.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this criminal revision are that the present applicant is facing a trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge under sections 148, 302, 447 of IPC & section 25(1 -B)(1) and section 27(1) of Arms Act. In this case, the deceased Kamal Patel died and there is also charges of attempt to murder of Mayabai. On 24.08.2015 the case was fixed for recording of prosecution witnesses as advocate Shri Kaushal Tiwari was busy in the High Court. The matter was taken up at 02.35 pm. Advocate Shri Vikas Daga filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the present applicant/accused Lakhan and sought one month's time for cross -examining the witnesses in attendance Mayabai and Pankaj. The matter was again taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at 04.00 pm. and the application filed by Shri Vikas Daga, advocate was considered. The learned Additional Sessions Judge opined that sufficient time was given to the accused for engaging a lawyer and therefore, considering that giving further time is not called for, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application, however, as it was already 04.00 pm. and other advocates Shri Jai Narayan Tiwari and Shri Vaibhav Gupta were also not present, the matter was adjourned for 25.08.2015.

(3.) On 25.08.2015, the impugned order was passed. On this date, the cross -examination of prosecution witness Pankaj was completed by other advocates Shri J.N. Tiwari and Shri K.K. Joshi. However, when Shri Vikas Daga, advocate for the present applicant was asked to cross -examine the witness, he again filed an application stating therein that he filed an application on 24.08.2015 and sought one month's time for cross -examining the witnesses which was not granted to him and, therefore, he again prayed that the opportunity be granted to him to cross -examine the witnesses and time is granted to him for cross -examination the witnesses. The learned court proceeded to dispose of the application and opined that the witnesses were asked to remain present on 25.08.2015, while they were present on 24.08.2015 and prior to that also they were present on two earlier occasions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge opined that as the cross - examination could not be completed on 24.08.2015, the counsel for the present applicant got the opportunity to prepare for cross - examination of these two witnesses. However, he did not avail the opportunity and again seek adjournment which amounts to harassment of the witnesses and, therefore, he dismissed the application and again asked the advocate to cross -examine the witnesses which he refused and then the accused was asked to cross -examine the witnesses which he also refused and, therefore, the prosecution witness Pankaj was released.