GANESH ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order impugned dated 15/12/2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Cr. Revision No. 107/04 arising out of C1 Case No. 1152/2000 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Economic Offence, Jamshedpur whereby and where-under the petition of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of P.W. 1 Sharda Nand was rejected by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court aforesaid.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that a complaint was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 for the eviction of the petitioner on his termination of service from the Company w.e.f. 4/9/1993 for committing offence under Section 630 of the Company's Act in the court of Special Judge, Economic Offence at Jamshedpur for the eviction of the quarter which was allotted to the petitioner on 6-10-89 for the efficient performance of duties and convenience. But after termination of the petitioner the contract between the employer and the employee also terminated since the petitioner ceased to be an employee of the Company. In course of trial before the said court several witnesses including one Sharda Nand was produced and examined on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 as P.W.1 and was cross-examined but it was detected later on by the petitioner that said P.W. 1 could not be examined on the point of allotment letter of the quarter which was provided by the Company and thereafter a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 9-6-04 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special Judge with the prayer to recall P.W. 1 Sharda Nand for further cross-examination on the point of Ext. 1 which was the allotment letter but the same was rejected by the Special Judge on 21-6-2004 and by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision on 15-12-2004.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Judge as well as the Sessions Judge without appreciating the matter and without taking into consideration the prejudice which would cause to the petitioner rejected the above petition on the flimsy grounds' that the petitioner did not disclose about the question to be put whereas the petitioner had consistently stated that he wanted to further cross-examine P.W. 1 only on Ext. 1 which was allotment letter.