VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The accused-petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 406, IPC and Ram Niwas, father of Mst. Guddi is a prosecution witness in the case. He was examined as PW-5. His examination-in-chief was complete on 4-3-1999 and cross-examination was closed on 10-2-2003. The accused-petitioner filed an application under Sec. 311, Cr. P.C. on 24-5-2004 before the trial Court with the prayer that he may be allowed to cross-examine PW-5 Ram Niwas and the learned trial Court allowed the petitioner's application on the same day. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the complainant non-petitioner filed a revision petition. The revisional Court vide its order dated 21-9-2004 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the trial Court. Hence the present petition by the accused-petitioner.

(2.) It appears that the case was fixed on 10-2-2003 for cross-examination of PW-5 Ram Niwas, but the witness could not be cross-examined for the reason that counsel for the accused was busy in some other Court and accordingly the trial Court closed the cross-examination vide order dated 10- 2-2003. In doing so, the trial Court observed that case is pending since 1991 and, therefore, no further opportunity can be given to cross-examine the witness. In the opinion of trial Court, the Senior Advocate was busy in some other Court was no ground to adjourn the case. However, the case was fixed for recording the statements of remaining prosecution witnesses. The revisional Court while disposing of the revision petition observed that since cross-examination was already closed vide order dated 10-2-2003, the Court cannot review its earlier order in view of the provisions of Section 362, Cr. P.C.

(3.) It may also be noted that revision petition was filed by Ram Niwas who was simply a witness in the case. Though the revisional Court held that Ram Niwas being a private party has no locus standi to file revision petition, still the revisional Court exercised revisional powers.