CRM No.M-33972 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-33972 of 2010 Date of Decision:18.11.2010 Amritpal Singh @ Jhona ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Mandeep S.Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this petition, is that a criminal case was registered against petitioner-accused-Amritpal Singh @ Jhona along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.237 dated 29.10.2006, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 452, 379, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar. After completion of the investigation, the final police report/challan was submitted against the accused by the police. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the accused were charge- sheeted, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 326, 324, 323, 480, 379, 427, 506 read with Section 149 IPC, vide order dated 17.04.2009(Annexure P-3) and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 3. The petitioner claimed that since he was not represented by any counsel, so the PWs could not be cross-examined on his behalf and the cross- examination was described as “NIL” opportunity given, which necessitated him to CRM No.M-33972 of 2010 2 file an application(Annexure P-4), for recalling of the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. The trial Court dismissed his application by virtue of impugned order dated 05.10.2010(Annexure P-1). 4. The petitioner-accused did not feel satisfied and filed the instant petition challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-1). 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner was not duly represented by any Advocate, during the course of the trial. The cross-examination of PWs was depicted as 'NIL' opportunity given. The trial Court observed that the prosecution witnesses were not deliberately cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner-accused. Thus, he(accused) cannot take the undue benefit of his such conduct by way of remaining mum throughout the trial. 7. True, it is that the petitioner-accused was somewhat negligent in this relevant connection, but that ipso facto is not a ground to decline his prayer, for recalling the material/eye witnesses for cross-examination on his behalf, in a case of serious offences, for which he was charge-sheeted, particularly when the complainant can adequately be compensated with costs. 8. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner along with his other co-accused have been charge-sheeted, for the commission of heinous offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 326, 324, 323, 480, 379, 427, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. 9. It is not a matter of dispute that to cross-examine a witness, is a valuable right of the accused. A denial to cross-examine the witness is nothing but an intrusion of legal right of the accused. Reliance in this regard can be placed on a judgment of this Court in case Surjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-33972 of 2010 3 2007(2) Criminal Court Cases, 160 and of Rajasthan High Court in case Hazari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995(1) R.C.R.(Criminal), 451. The aforesaid observations “mutatis-mutandis” are applicable to the facts of the present case and are the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. Therefore, in that eventuality, interest of justice would be sub-served, if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the material/eye witnesses, in order to decide the actual culpability and his participation in the indicated crime. Otherwise great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in this relevant connection. 11. In the light of 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, the instant petition is hereby accepted. 12. The trial Court, is directed to recall only the injured/eye witnesses to enable the petitioner to cross-examine them. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant/injured witnesses, so recalled. The payment of costs by the petitioner will be a condition precedent for recalling the witnesses for cross-examination. Hence, the impugned order(Annexure P-1) is modified accordingly to the extent indicated here-in-above. 13. Needless to mention that, if the petitioner does not pay the costs or the trial Court otherwise comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is, in any manner, at fault and is intentionally delaying the disposal of the case, then he will be deemed to have waived his right of cross-examination of the witnesses and it(trial Court) would be at liberty to finally decide the case, in accordance with law. November 18, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE CRM No.M-33972 of 2010 4 CRM No.M-33972 of 2010 5