Criminal Misc. No. 14186-M OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 14186-M OF 2010 Date of decision:1st February, 2011 Jagroop Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Neelam, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Faridkot, vide which he had declined the objections of the petitioner and allowed the prosecution to give up PW Mukhtiar Singh. The question herein is as to whether a witness can be given up as not necessary after his statement has been already recorded. The precise question came up before the Court in the case Smt. Sodhan vs. Faquir Singh and another reported 1986(2) PLR Criminal Misc. No. 14186-M OF 2010 2 371, where in the order of the trial court was set aside vide which the request of the counsel for the plaintiff to examine the witness which was given up and his evidence was ordered to be treated as non- existent was declined by holding as under:- “One Kehar Singh lambardar was produced as a witness by the defendant. After the oath had been administered to him and his statement partly recorded, he was allowed to be given up on the plea of the defendants that he had been won over and it was directed that his statement be not read in evidence. Counsel for the plaintiff instead sought permission to cross-examine the witness. This request was declined on the ground that the witness had already been given up and his evidence ordered to be treated as non existent. There is no provision of law that counsel for the respondents could point to support or justify this order. This being so, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the trial court was one wholly unknown to law and the imugned order must thus be set aside as being blatantly contrary to law.” Criminal Misc. No. 14186-M OF 2010 3 The facts are somehow similar. Admittedly, PW-Mukhtiar Singh statement was recorded. After recording the same, he gave him up as unnecessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the same. However his objections were dismissed. This has resulted in causing prejudice to the petitioner as it has led to a denial of his right to cross examine the said witness. In view of the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sodhan's case(supra) as well as to the facts of the present case, impugned order dated 31.03.2010 is set aside with the direction that in case the petitioner herein wishes to cross examine PW-1 Mukhtiar Singh, he shall be allowed to do so in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE 1st February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik