GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-10-23
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 22,2013

GURNAM SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307 I.P.C. and 25 Arms Act. Examination chief of PW 2 Jeevan Singh were recorded on 04.02.2013. However, cross -examination was deferred for 15.02.2013 on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner herein. Thereafter, case was adjourned on 15.02.2013, 22.02.2013, 02.03.2013 and 04.03.2013. Sufficient opportunities were given to the learned counsel for the accused to cross examine PW 2 Jeevan Singh, however, he was not cross examined, therefore, evidence of PW 2 Jeevan Singh was closed.
(2.) THEREAFTER , an application was moved by the present petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW 2 Jeevan Singh for cross examination which was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.05.2013. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is no dispute about the fact that examination in chief of PW 2 Jeevan Singh was recorded on 04.02.2013 and cross examination of PW 2 was deferred on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is not disputed that thereafter on several dates, cross examination of PW 2 Jeevan Singh was deferred and ultimately it was closed on 06.03.2013.
(3.) SECTION 309 Cr.P.C. reads as under: - 309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. - (1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: [Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under sections 376 to 376D of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of commencement of the examination of witnesses.] (2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time: Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: [Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.] Provided also that - (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of the that party; (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment; (c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross -examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination -in -chief or cross -examination of the witness, as the case may be.] Explanation 1. - If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Explanation 2. - The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.