NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10.5.2012 passed by Sri Choudhry Ahsan Moiz, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner on 10.5.2012 in G.R. No.1800 of 2006, was rejected. It appears that putting some questions to the witnesses during cross examination by the defence was denied by the Court, compelling the accused petitioner to file the application, which was dismissed by the Court below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and the defense was quite within its limits to put the question to PW 8 Ashok Kumar Sao, who was the Ward Commissioner between the year 1978 to 18th June 1994, as is apparent from the impugned order itself. It is further submitted that the document towards which the attention of the witnesses was being drawn was not produced abruptly, rather the said document is the part of the FIR itself. LEARNED counsel further submitted that the Court could not have deprived the defence from putting any question to the prosecution witness during the cross examination and has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.