IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1636 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 08, 2011 Raj Narayan Khanna .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. H.S. Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Criminal Revision No.1636 of 2011 [2] 1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused in FIR case. It appears that Assistant Sub Inspector Amarjit Singh (at places mentioned as Paramjit Singh) was examined as PW-3. In examination-in-chief, he did not give any specific statement as regards taking of statement of Davinder Nath Gupta under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In cross-examination, no question was put to him as to whether he correctly recorded the statement of Davinder Nath Gupta under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 2. Davinder Nath Gupta, Assistant Executive Engineer, was examined as PW-4. In cross-examination, the said witness has been confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which however has been marked as ‘X’. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross examination of PW-3 Amarjit Singh/ Paramjit Singh which has been declined vide impugned order dated 14.7.2011. 4. Because confrontation of the document has been allowed and because the document has not been proved on record, it would be appropriate for record of the Court and for assistance to the Court to put the document to the witness. 5. Impugned order dated 14.7.2011 is hereby set aside. The petitioner would be allowed to further cross examine PW-3 Amarjit Singh/ Paramjit Singh by way of giving one Criminal Revision No.1636 of 2011 [3] opportunity only. 6. The petition is accordingly allowed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 08, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?