Crl.m.c./782/2011 Of Satish Chander Sharma v. Income Tax Office

24 &25 %o 17.03.2OLL Present: Mr. T.N. sarena and Mr. M.c. sharma, Advs. for the petitioner.Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Adv. for the respondent. + crl. M.C. No. 781/2011l [Crl. ][M.C. ]no. 782 ^n11 Petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.p.C. before theAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi for recalling of pWlfor his cross examination by the petitioner/accused. This application wasAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi for recalling of pWlfor his cross examination by the petitioner/accused. This application wasdismissed vide order dated 2gfr May, 2or0. petitioner fired a revisionpetition against this order before the Sessions Judge which has beenpetition against this order before the Sessions Judge which has beendismissed vide order dated 22n January,2oLr. That is how petitioner isbefore this Court. Trial Court file perused. It appears that respondent hadexamined Jaglar Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax as pWl atexamined Jaglar Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax as pWl atpre-charge stage. Pw1 was even cross-examined by the petitioner,scounsel. charge was framed on 2005. Thereafter, pwl was.13ft May, .13ft May, recalled in the witness box on 21"t october, 2005. He was tendered forcross-exarnination by the petitioner but since counsel for the petitioner wasnot present, he was not cross-examined. opportumty of the petitioner tonot present, he was not cross-examined. opportumty of the petitioner tocross-exarnine this witness was closed on 21"t October, 2005. Thereafter,matter proceeded. further and reached at the stage of final arguments. Atthat stage an application under Section 311 Cr.p.C. was filed which hasbeen rejected by the trial court.matter proceeded. further and reached at the stage of final arguments. Atthat stage an application under Section 311 Cr.p.C. was filed which hasbeen rejected by the trial court. At this stag€, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that hewould be satisfied in case the cross-examination of pW1 recorded at pre-charge stage is read in evidence during the trial more so, when this witness t had not stepped in the witness box again to depose anything further thanwhat he had stated earlier at pre-charge stage. He was simply tendered forhis cross-examination post framing of charge. Accordingly, it is orderedthat cross-examination of Pwl, recorded at pre-charge stage, shall be readin evidence post framing of charge stage, more so, when this rritness hadhis cross-examination post framing of charge. Accordingly, it is orderedthat cross-examination of Pwl, recorded at pre-charge stage, shall be readin evidence post framing of charge stage, more so, when this rritness hadnot stepped in the witness box to depose anything further after framing ofcharge. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.charge. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Copy of this order be given to counsel for petitioner under therisignaturris of Court Master.risignaturris of Court Master. Crl. M.A. No. 2967l2ott Crl. M.A. No. 2968/2O11 Disposed of as infructuous. d5,J-=/\nA.K. PATHAI{, J. March 17,2OLt ga