CRL.Rev.P.No..493 of 2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.No. 493/2009 Decided on 05.08.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : S.K. KAPOOR ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. S.K. Kapoor, Adv. versus MCD ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi rejecting his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking re-examination of the witnesses produced by the respondent/complainant/MCD, namely, PW1 Shri Govind Ram, Licensing Inspector, MCD and PW2 Shri H.K. Sharma, ALO, MCD. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed as the petitioner/accused was ignorant about the CRL.Rev.P.No..493 of 2009 Page 2 of 4 practice and procedure of the court and could not cross-examine the witnesses when such an opportunity was granted to him by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In this regard, he draws the attention of this Court to the application filed by the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. A perusal of the said application shows that apart from making an averment to the effect that the petitioner/ accused was ignorant about the practice and procedure of the court, it was stated that he was not provided an amicus curiae to assist him and he never engaged any counsel earlier. 3. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is stated to be a graduate, who retired from the Army as a Captain. On inquiry, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appearing in the complaint case on his own and that prior to filing of the aforesaid application, no request was ever made by him to the court for being provided with any legal service to assist him. It is mentioned in the impugned order that while the aforesaid two witnesses were examined on 24.7.2008, the aforesaid application came to be filed by the petitioner only on 6.7.2009, i.e., after a gap of about one year. Pertinently, in that one year, 14 dates were fixed in the case, after which the evidence of the respondent/complainant and that of the petitioner/accused was finally closed and when the matter was at the stage of addressing arguments, the petitioner filed the above application. 4. It is settled law that ignorance of law is no defence. The CRL.Rev.P.No..493 of 2009 Page 3 of 4 petitioner is an educated person and expected to know the law. It is not as if he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the other side. Rather, he declined such an opportunity. Being well aware of the fact that he did not cross- examine the witnesses in question either himself or by engaging a counsel, he cannot be permitted to do so at this belated stage, without offering any sufficient cause or justification for not doing so when an opportunity was so granted to him. 5. Counsel for the petitioner states that he is the brother of the petitioner and that he is now conducting the matter on his behalf before the court below. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s own brother is a practicing advocate, he could very well have contacted him earlier to seek appropriate legal assistance to defend himself. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to at which stage of the trial did the petitioner ask the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for assistance of an amicus curiae and if so, the order declining such a request. It has therefore to be assumed that the present application is an afterthought. Having failed to ask for legal assistance at the relevant stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to set the clock back on the ground that he is ignorant about the practice and procedure of the court and therefore could not cross- examine the witnesses at the relevant time. This cannot be considered as a reasonable or sufficient ground for recalling the witnesses, after lapse of one year, at the stage of arguments in the CRL.Rev.P.No..493 of 2009 Page 4 of 4 case. 6. Counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question, which has been challaned by the MCD. This is not an issue on which cross-examination of the two witnesses can be claimed by the petitioner. Rather, the question is purely one which hinges on ownership/title, which could have been established by the petitioner by producing the relevant documents. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness in the impugned order or miscarriage of justice, which deserves interference. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. HIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 05, 2010 sk