IMRAT LAL Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 26.11.1994 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge of Vidisha rejecting the application of the Petitioner to re -examine P. W. 8 Dinesh Kumar Sharma.

(2.) HEARD Shri A. K. Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner / accused and Shri P. D. Agrawal, Panel lawyer appearing for the non -petitioner / State and perused the record.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the application moved for re -examination of P. W. 8 Dinesh Kumar Sharma was on a point of material contradictions between the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C. and statement given in Court. These contradictions could not be put to the witness by the earlier counsel who cross examined the witness at earlier stage. The material contradiction so pointed out is definitely has a bearing on the charge on which the petitioner is being tried. As such judicial discretion ought to have been exercised giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to re -examine and cross -examine the witness on the point of material contradiction left over earlier under the provisions of Section 311 Cr. P. C.