RAJINDER SINGH CHADHA Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-accused Rajinder Singh Chadha has filed the present revision petition against order dated 4.4.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.PC for recalling the witness i.e. SI Naveen Sharma (PW3), who was the investigating officer in the case for crossexamination, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, an FIR No.365 dated 13.11.2009 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh against the petitioner and Agwinder Singh. On the basis of investigation, challan as provided under Section 173 Cr.PC was presented in the court. The petitioner as well as the other accused were charge-sheeted on 15.10.2013 and charge under Sections 420/120-B IPC was framed against them. The case thereafter was adjourned for prosecution evidence on various dates. On 15.1.2015, the trial Court had passed the following order:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court has not considered the written request for adjournment of the petitioner and no such order for rejection or acceptance was shown in the jimni order dated 15.1.2015. The cross-examination of SI Naveen Sharma (PW3) was marked as Nil and the case was fixed for 23.2.2015. However, on 23.2.2015, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.PC for recalling the witness i.e. SI Naveen Sharma (PW3) to cross-examine the said witness. In the application, it was asserted that the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 15.1.2015 and examination-in-chief of SI Naveen Sharma (PW3) was recorded. The petitioner had moved an application before the trial Court for an adjournment on the ground that the counsel engaged by him to defend his case was not properly attending the case and he had lost confidence in him. Therefore, he wanted to engage some other lawyer in place of that lawyer. After the filing of the application, the petitioner-accused engaged Mr. A.P.S. Rana, Advocate as his counsel. He had appeared before the trial Court. It has also been asserted that PW3 is the investigating officer of the case and he being a material witness is required to be cross-examined to determine the truth which is essential for just decision of the case. Recalling of said witness for cross-examination will not cause any irreparable loss to any of the parties whereas in case the cross-examination of said witness is not recorded, then serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-accused and he would suffer an irreparable loss and injury.