Criminal Misc. No. M-15060 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-15060 of 2009 Date of decision:- 30.3.2011 Salwinder Singh Aulakh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioner has not been granted appropriate opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness. The petitioner is facing trial in FIR No. 163 dated 08.5.2005 under Sections 307,148,149 IPC and under Section 25,27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. As per the complainant-Kulwinder Singh dispute is going on with regard to land measuring 162 killas with Retd. Colonel Salwinder Singh son of Harnam Singh resident of 260, Green Avenue, Amritsar. Salwinder Singh alongwith Vinod Kumar and 2-3 unidentified persons ploughing the land of the complainant with tractor. When retired Colonel stopped for ploughing the field, he alongwith unidentified persons came and gave dang Criminal Misc. No. M-15060 of 2009 -2- blows to the complainant. Vinod Kumar fired from his double barrel gun and the pallets hit the complainant on chest and thigh. His wife Paramjit Kaur took him to the hospital. In the above background the FIR was registered. The matter was investigated and challan was presented and thereafter charged were also framed. On 17.4.2009 the petitioner made a request to the court that he wanted to engage a new counsel. The trial Court proceeded to record the statement of HC Bikramjit Singh (PW1). Since counsel for the petitioner was not present, the witness HC Bikramjit Singh could not be cross-examined. Statement of Kulwinder Singh-complainant and his wife Paramjit Kaur were recorded. In their statements they alleged that petitioner had given the fire-arm injury. During the course of examination of these witnesses Kulwinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur, the Additional Public Prosecutor made a request to cross-examine these witnesses and that request was allowed by the trial Court. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge allowed to the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine all the witnesses. Mr. Veneet Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has argued that the power to exercise under Section 154 of the Evidence Act confers its judicial discretion and to permit cross-examination and does not contain any condition or principal which may govern such discretion. In the present case the discretion has been exercised in a most casual manner. The application of the petitioner for changing his counsel has been declined and the trial Court has gone on to record the evidence of three witnesses and no effective opportunity to cross-examine PW1 HC Bikramjit Singh was granted to the petitioner. Since the procedure adopted by the Trial Court in recording the statements of PW2 and PW3 was not as per law and application dated 08.5.2009 whereby an application for deleting the evidence of PW2 and Criminal Misc. No. M-15060 of 2009 -3- PW3 has been kept in abeyance and the trial Court summoned the another witness for 29.5.2009. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Rabindra Kumar Dey versus State of Orissa AIR 1977 Supreme Court 170. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG Punjab has argued that earlier statement recorded by the police of Paramjit Kaur wife of Kulwinder Singh (Ex.P- 4) was not correctly recorded as they were not read over and explained the statement to her. Vinod Kumar servant of Salwinder Singh did not cause injury to her husband confronted with her statement Ex.P-4 portion 'A' to 'A/1' where it is so recorded. The witness denies for the same and stated that the fire-arm injury was caused by Retd. Colonel Salwinder Singh. This version of the complainant was got changed by the accused in connivance with the police. Thereafter, Parminder Kaur and her husband filed the present complaint. Order dated 17.4.2009 is legal and valid. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the statements given by PW2 and PW3 before the Court, he has alternate remedy to file a private complaint or protest petition before the Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. Merely because the prosecution did not declare PW2 and PW3 as hostile and has cross-examined them would not excuse their evidence for consideration altogether. The evidence remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to base conviction upon the testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. In the present case, the evidence given by Paramjit Kaur (Ex.P-4) was not read over to her, therefore, when she was confronted with her statement (Ex.P-4) she denied the same and stated that fire-arm injury was caused by Colonel Salwinder Singh. Prayer for change of counsel has been denied as it was merely an attempt to delay the trial. In view of the above facts, the order does not suffer from any Criminal Misc. No. M-15060 of 2009 -4- infirmity and the criminal miscellaneous petition is hereby dismissed. 30.3.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE