RAMJAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the impugned order dated 6.9.2000, whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the application u/s. 311 Crimial P.C. moved on behalf of the accused petitioner to recall PW-11 Shri Mali Ram Constable for cross-examination.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel, learned Public Prosecutor. According to learned counsel Criminal Case u/s. 8/18 of the NDPS Act is pending before the trial Judge. Four prosecution witnesses PW-8 to PW-11 were examined on 19.8.98. Learned counsel further states that only one witness PW-8 Ratan Lal was cross-examined and remaining three witnesses were not cross-examined by defence counsel, but this prayer was made only to cross-examine. PW-11 Mali Ram, who is a witness in relation to compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act and his statement seems to be very material and, therefore, the prayer to cross-examine PW-11. Shri Mali Ram should have been allowed. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and in the alternative, it was submitted that if the revision is allowed then the accused should pay the if expenses payable to PW-11 Shri Mali Ram.

(3.) I have considered the above submissions. The factual aspect as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner was not controverted by learned Public Prosecutor and in view of the Provisions of Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. when it appears that if the examination or re-examination or cross-examination of the witness appears to be essential to the just decision of the case, such witness shall be summoned by the trial Court. PW-11 Shri Mali Ram was examined on the point of compliance of the Provisions of Sec. 42 and cross-examination of this witness seems to be essential for just decision of this case. Therefore, this revision is allowed. The learned trial Judge shall recall this witness PW- 11 for cross-examination and expenses of this witness for appearance in the Court shall be paid by the accused petitioner as per rules. Revision Petition allowed.