VICKY Vs. STATE OF U.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.08.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (for short 'trial Court'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling of the prosecution witnesses (PW-2 to PW-6) has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.125 dated 05.07.2017, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') was registered at Police Station Maloya, Chandigarh against the petitioner on the allegations of unlawful possession of 20 injections (2 ml. each) of Buprenorphine as well as 20 injections (10 ml. each) of Pheniramine Avil. After usual investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before learned trial Court and copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner as per law. Learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the material available on record, prima facie, found that petitioner has committed an offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and charge-sheeted him accordingly, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 27.04.2018 and after examining one PW, adjourned to 23.05.2018 for remaining prosecution evidence. On that day, five prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 were examined and case was adjourned to 03.07.2018 for remaining prosecution evidence. On 03.07.2018, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner for recalling of PW-2 to PW-6 for their further cross-examination on the ground that earlier counsel, namely, Sh. Sahil Shori, Advocate remained admitted in the hospital on account of burn injuries and the new counsel i.e. Sh. Paramjit Singh Saini, Advocate could not cross-examine the above prosecution witnesses properly on 23.05.2018, thus, a great prejudice has been caused to him.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that due to ill health of the earlier defence counsel, a new counsel was engaged only on 23.05.2018 and on that day, five prosecution witnesses were examined, but due to lack of proper briefing, he was not able to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, thus, a great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.