RAJINDER SINGH @ JINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is being disposed of with the assistance rendered by counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent No. 1. Present petitioner Rajinder Singh @ Jinder was facing trial in a case under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar along with one Ram Singh. The allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused were that 14 kilograms of Heroine was recovered from them. One of the dated of the trial was 31.8.1996. From the impugned order it is indicated that on that day the trial Court reserved the whole day for this case only in view of the lengthy nature of the evidence expected to be led by the prosecution so as to ensure the availability of the defence counsel throughout the day and also as per his convenience. On that day PW Ajmal Singh, Joint Assistant Director of BSF was present. His presence was secured from Satakha in a remote area of Nagaland. His examination-in-chief was recorded in the presence of Shri R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate, but the said Advocate requested for adjournment for cross-examination on the plea that his senior counsel Shri J.S. Malhi had gone suddenly to Delhi, while Shri R.K. Sachdeva was engaged on that day and, therefore, he was unable to go through the file. Examination of three more formal witnesses namely DSP Inder Singh, Satbir Singh ASI and Dr. Raj Pal was recorded. The accused made a request to the trial Court for adjournment in order to cross-examine the witness Ajmal Singh as also witness Alok Rao, SP Vigilance and SI Badri Parsad. Though there was hardly any justification in order to accommodate the defence lawyer still the Court accommodated the accused by exercising the powers under Section 303 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of costs of the witnesses in the Govt. Treasury within 15 days. While imposing the costs the trial Court held as follows :-

(2.) THIS order dated 31.8.1996 has been impugned in the present revision, mainly on the grounds that by imposing costs, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had made it difficult for the petitioner to defend himself. This Court does not see any merit in the grounds of revision. On account of the fault of a lawyer a litigant should not be punished is a recognised principle of law, and this Court also gives lot of respect to this proposition. However when the latter adopts delaying tactics and wants to defeat the administration of justice by adopting such tactics, that fault is also to suppose by the litigant who should be well vigilant when he engages a counsel when the latter will be able to deliver the goods or not. When a witness is summoned in the Court he gets TA/DA. He dispenses with his usual official duties. This aspect should also have been considered by the learned defence counsel who gave more preference to his personal work, rather providing assistance to the Court. He could instruct his colleague to cross-examine the witness. Rather it appears by going to Delhi the learned Lawyer took the court for granted and in these circumstances the imposition of the costs by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was totally justified. This revision is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.