- (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. It appears from the impugned order that PW 8 Ashok Kumar Sao was being cross-examined by the defence. The said witness Ashok Kumar Sao was the Ward Commissioner between 1978 to 18th June 1994. The defense put the question to the said witness, drawing his attention towards the voter list of Dhanbad Assembly Constituency for the year 1995 at Serial No.194, which appears to be objected by the Court, pursuant to which the application had been filed in the Court below, which was rejected by the learned Court below. The record shows that the petitioner has been made accused in Dhanbad Bank More P.S Case No.393 of 2006, corresponding to G.R No.1800 of 2006. From perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the voter list of 1995 is Annexure ­ 7 to the FIR, out of 23 annexures to the said FIR. It appears from the impugned order that when PW 8 Ashok Kumar Sao was being cross-examined, his attention was drawn by the defence towards serial No.194 of voter list of 1995, which appears to be objected and ultimately an application was filed by the defence for allowing it to put the said question. However, the Court below by the impugned order dated 10.5.2012 has stated that the said witness had only identified the accused Nirmal Kumar Singh and the document was shown to the witness during the cross-examination, was not seized by the police during the course of investigation, but the question was put from the side of defence during the cross- examination, abruptly beyond the provision of the Evidence Act. Giving these reasons, the application filed by the defence was dismissed.
(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. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.;