OM PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. BISWANATH CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) all the sides are present through their learned Advocates. The appeal is taken up for hearing.

(2.) At the very outset Mr. Jha, the learned Advocate for the appellants draws our attention to the fact that before the Forum when the trial was going on the two witnesses of the complainant namely the complainant Sri Biswanath Chakraborty himself (P. W.-1) and Dr. Binay Pahwa (P. W.-2) were examined-in-chief in the form of affidavit on evidence being affirmed on behalf of them and when the O. P. sought liberty and chance to cross-examine those two witnesses the Forum by its order dated 22.7.2003 rejected such prayer and passed order observing that if finally the Forum after studying the case consider it necessary that such cross-examination would be required, then and then only it would give the O. Ps. such a chance of cross-examining those two witnesses. As a result, ultimately the Forum having not given any such chance of liberty to the O. Ps. for cross-examining those two witnesses, they were deprived of this opportunity and in consequence the principle of natural justice has been violated and now the position is this that the evidence-in-chief of those two witnesses remain totally unchallenged, a fact for which the O. P. have no responsibility. Mr. Jha further submits that if this flaw of lacuna persists then there lies the serious danger of the O. Ps. to suffer failure of justice and irreparable prejudice. On perusal of the order sheet dated 19.6.2003, 8.7.2003 and 22.7.2003 we find that the above submission is fully correct and justified. After the Forum gave the complainant an opportunity to adduce evidence in the form of afferent it could not by any means deny similar opportunity to the O. Ps. for cross-examining those two witnesses by means of putting questionnaire or filing counter affidavit. Therefore, in our opinion there has been denial of justice and the O. P. should now be given an opportunity to make good the lacuna which has been persisting in the evidence not due to any fault on their part, but due to the passing of the said orders by the Forum. Therefore, we are inclined at the very outset to hold that before we enter into hearing of the appeal, that the O. Ps. should be granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant as mentioned above.

(3.) In that view of the matter we remand this case to the Forum for fresh hearing after giving an opportunity to the O. Ps. to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant namely the complainant himself and Dr. Binay Pahwa in accordance with the law. The appeal is, therefore, allowed on contest but, however, without any cost. The impugned judgment and order be set aside. Appeal allowed.