IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1239 of 2008 BABLU CHAURASIYA, S/o. Lakhandeo Mandal, r/o. Village-Barai Chak Patna, P.S. Naya Ramnagar, District- Munger. -------------- Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Civil Court, Munger through its registrar, Distt. Munger. 3. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Mandal, S/o. Sri Anuplal Mandal, r/o. Village- Barai Chak Patam, P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District- Munger. -------- Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Sr. Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mrs. Rani Kumari @ Rani Singh, A.C. to G.A. -3. ----------- 2 31.03.2009 The petitioner seeks the quashing of the trial- court’s order dated 18.11.2008, whereby in course of cross-examination in criminal trial a witness stated that he had given his statement before the Officer-in-Charge in writing and he also stated that he had received some injuries at the hands of the accused and he was treated for that and on such statement of the witness the petitioner, who was one of the accused in this case, filed two petitions before the trial court, wherein prayers were made for calling for those two papers namely, the statement of the witnesses stated to have been filed under his signature and the injury report with respect to his injuries and insisted that he will continue the cross-examination only 2 after receipt of those two papers. The learned trial court verified the case-diary and it came to find that there was no statement of the witness under his signature or any injury report with respect to his injuries available in the case-diary. The trial court took the view that since those two papers did not exist there was no question of calling for such document or serving copies of those papers to the defence. It was also the view of the learned court-below that the prosecution has to prove its case on the basis of its own evidence and it cannot be compelled to bring any evidence at the will and advice of the accused persons. The court also took the view that if any infirmities occurred in the case of prosecution due to these factors as was pointed to have appeared in the cross-examination of the witness the defence could take advantage of it as infirmities in the case of the prosecution. On these grounds the learned trial court rejected the petitioner’s two petitions and asked the petitioner to continue of the cross-examination of the two witnesses. The learned court-below has recorded in its impugned order that despite the request of the Court the 3 petitioner did not continue with the cross-examination of the witnesses and stated that he will not cross-examine the witness in absence of these two papers. In these circumstances, the trial court having felt that it has no option but to discharge the witness discharged him. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated in favour of the insistence of the petitioner/accused for calling for those papers but ultimately this point was not pressed and the learned counsel submitted that refusal of the accused for continuing with the cross-examination of the witness was result of wrong step on behalf of the petitioner and it was prayed that at least an opportunity should be afforded to cross-examine the witness. This prayer for an opportunity to cross-examine the witness was resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent who submitted that the petitioner was given all opportunities to cross-examine the witness but he deliberately refused to cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, it was argued that at this stage there is no justification ordering for an opportunity for further cross- examination. 4 Thus hearing, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)