Ramnath Kashyap v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2255 of 2018 Ramnath Kashyap S/o Buturam Kashyap Aged About 63 Years R/o Rewanpur, Thana - Urga, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Aa.Ja.Ka. Thana - Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner:

Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate.

For State/Respondent:

Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, J Order On Board 14.11.2018 1.

Heard.

2.

By way of this Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the propriety of order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Korba (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.42/2017, by which the application filed by him under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') has been rejected. 3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order impugned is apparently contrary to law as the same has been passed by the trial Court without assigning any reasons. He submits further that certain questions and suggestions have not been put to the said witness (Smt. Ishwari Kashap/PW6) during her examination, and therefore, re-examination of the said witness is necessary for just decision of the case. It is contended further by him that without considering the said fact in its proper manner, the trial Court has erred in dismissing the said

application in a cursory manner, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the entire papers annexed with this Petition carefully. 5.

From perusal of the statement of Smt. Ishwari Kashyap examined as PW6, it is clear that she was cross-examined thoroughly by the Petitioner and no grievance as such was raised immediately after the examination of the said witness. Pertinently to be noted here that during her examination the Petitioner was not precluded from putting any of the question to her. It, therefore, appears that the said application dated 27.06.2018 seeking recalling of the said witness has been filed malafidely just to fill up the lacuna, however, the provision provided under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used to fill up the same. In such circumstances, the said witness cannot be recalled merely on asking by the Petitioner. The order impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity and deserves to be and is hereby affirmed.

6.

The Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Agrawal) JUDGE Nikita