CRM No.M-30886 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.9.2010 Ravinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.R.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr.S.P.Soi, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The symposium of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of complaint of Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No.2), a criminal case was registered against petitioner Ravinder Kaur wife of Gurnam Singh, vide FIR No.6 dated 9.5.2006 on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) by the police of Police Station VB FS-1, Mohali. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the petitioner was accordingly charge sheeted and the case was slated for prosecution evidence. The prosecution, inter-alia, examined PW5 Sukhwinder Singh in the court, but since he did not fully support the prosecution version, so, he was declared hostile. He was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor and was duly confronted with his earlier statement recorded during the course of investigation. 3. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor moved an application (Annexure P3) for recalling PW5 Sukhwinder Singh under section 311 Cr.PC. The petitioner- accused contested the prayer of the prosecution and filed the reply (Annexure P4). CRM No.M-30886 of 2009 2 4. The Special Judge accepted the application and allowed the prosecution to re-examine PW5 Sukhwinder Singh, vide impugned order dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure P5). 5. The petitioner-accused did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present petition. That is how I am seized of the matter. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 7. As is evident from the record that the prosecution examined PW5 Sukhwinder Singh in the court, but now the prosecution has moved an application (Annexure P3) for his re-examination mainly on the ground that on that day, he (PW5) was threatened by 4/5 persons in the court premises that in case he did not make the statement in favour of the accused, then he shall not be able to reach Ludhiana and would be eliminated on the way. As he was suffering from blood pressure, therefore, the threat has big pressure on his mind and he could not depose correctly in the court. In this context, taking into consideration the relevancy of the evidence, the trial court has rightly permitted the prosecution to re-examine PW5, who is a material witness against the accused in a corruption case. 8. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that once the witness was examined then the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to re-call the witness at this stage, on the application of the prosecution, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Section 311 Cr.PC postulates that “any Court may, at any stage of the inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” Meaning thereby, the Special Judge has the vast power to recall the witness in this relevant connection. CRM No.M-30886 of 2009 3 9. The other argument of the learned counsel that PW5 will depose falsely on account of enmity with the accused and since his evidence (second statement) would not be admissible, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside, again has no force. Whether there is any enmity between PW5 and the accused and what would be the evidentiary value of the subsequent statement, would be the moot points to be decided during the trial of the case. Moreover, the petitioner would be at liberty to cross-examine PW5 and since he can put his material of previous enmity in his cross-examination, so, he cannot possibly be saith to be prejudiced by the impugned order in any manner. To me, since PW5 is a material witness, so his re-examination is very much essential to decide the real controversy between the parties in the instant corruption case. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 10. In this manner, the Special Judge has recorded a valid reason in allowing the re-examination of PW5. Such order cannot legally be set aside while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.PC, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Neither any such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 28.9.2010 Judge AS