SWARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Swaran Singh and another through present petition filed by them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek quashing of order dated 20.8.1993 declining their application under Section 3 11 Cr. P.C. for sum-morning two material witnesses, namely, Sukhdev Singh and Surta Singh, who also happened to be njured in the occurrence giving rise to the trial. against the petitioners.

(2.) The evidence in examination-in chief of he aforesaid two witnesses was recorded on 3.7.1993. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the first date for recording of prosecution evidence fixed by the trial Court was 17.2.1993. As no prosecution witness was present, matter was adjourned to 7.4.1993. On the adjourned date, the trial Judge had once again to adjourn the case for the sole reason that the witnesses Sukhdev Singh and Surta Singh were not present despite service. The said witnesses were ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 500/- along with other witnesses for 26.5.1993. On the adjourned date as well, no P.W. was present and the Magistrate, thus, ordered their presence through non-bailable warrants and adjourned the matter to 10.7.1993, on which date, as referred to above, statements of the aforesaid two witnesses were recorded. Later, an application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the aforesaid witnesses with a view to cross-examine them. The ground mentioned in the application was that the counsel representing the petitioners had to go to Amritsar and they being illiterate could not subject the aforesaid witnesses to any meaningful cross-examination. This application was, however, declined vide impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that inasmuch as two injured witnesses were material witnesses, they should have been re-summoned for their effective cross-examination by the counsel who happened to be out of station on 13.7.1993. In support of his contention that material evidence should not be allowed to go un-questioned, learned counsel relies upon a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Dwarka Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh.