KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State.

(2.) With the prior consent of both the parties, looking to the urgency of the matter, this petition is being disposed of immediately.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the petition itself, contended that PW 2 Subhash who was also injured in the alleged incident, was examined on 5.12.94 by a Judicial Magistrate since his death was also anticipated but, any how, he did not succumb to the injuries and survived and, therefore, his previous statement so recorded by the Magistrate being in existence, its copy was never supplied to the accused- petitioner along with other statements of prosecution witnesses. As a result, since the accused was not supplied copy of such statement and, therefore, at the time of examination of PW 2 Subhash, no use could be made of his previous statement dated 22.8.92 and so the accused- petitioner was deprived of opportunity of exercising his right of cross-examination. As a result, the petitioner moved the trial court under Sec. 311, Code Criminal Procedure with a request that PW 2 Subhash be recalled for his further cross-examination in regard to the statement so previously recorded by the Magistrate and, at the same time, for calling the Judicial Magistrate who had recorded his statement.