JAMAHIR PARAMANIK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kalyani, Nadia in Criminal Revision No. 5/2017 thereby setting aside an order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia and expunging the entire re-examination of the witness PW 1.

(2.) The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted as follows. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in the case before the Learned Court below. He alleged that he had paid earnest money to the accused for the purchase of a flat, but was cheated by the accused. Although the case was initially started under Section 420 of the Penal Code, Sections 468, 471 of the Penal Code were added subsequently. In view of Section 302 of the Code, the petitioner was permitted to conduct the trial of the case. In order to clarify certain facts that were referred to in the examination-in-chief of PW 1, after the cross-examination by the defence, re-examination of PW 1 was sought. Such prayer was allowed by the Learned Trial Court. No new facts were introduced in the cross-examination. All the eight questions asked during re-examination pertained to the cross-examination. For instance, to reconcile the statement made in cross-examination it was stated in the re-examination that the petitioner's father did not receive any offer for money. As regards the statement in the cross-examination that one Debabrata Sahani was also such a resident who had filed another case against the accused, the same had a clear reference in the preceding cross-examination where it had been stated that all the residents purchased their flats from the accused. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in the State of West Bengal vs. Arunesh Pathak, 2000 CrLJ 1039 (Cal) and on Jai Shree Yadav vs. State of U.P.,2004 9 SCC 788.

(3.) The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/accused submitted as follows. In re-examination, new facts cannot be introduced, which have no connection with or are not meant to clarify the preceding examination-in-chief and cross-examination. In the present case, there is a clear attempt to introduce new facts during re-examination. For example, the reference to an earlier case started by another resident amounts to a clear introduction of a new fact. Moreover, in the application seeking re-examination, it was not explained about what was the ambiguity that was being sought to be clarified. The ratio of the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner actually favour the case of the opposite party no. 2.