2016 MLD 1747
Arts.132 & 133---Refusal to grant permission to cross-examine the Investigating Officer---Trial Court while trying the complaint case, had declined the request of the complainant to cross-examine prosecution witness/Sub-Inspector of Police---Stance taken by the Trial Court was that the witness was produced by the complainant as prosecution witness, who could not be termed as hostile witness; as such he could not cross-examine said witness---Stance taken by the Trial Court was not based upon the correct application of law---If the complaint was also filed along with the State case, then the procedure for the court was to take up first the complaint case; and to examine prosecution witnesses listed in the Police challan as "court witnesses"---When the witness was treated as court witness, then a right was accrued in both parties to cross-examine him---Trial Court, in the present case, should have followed that procedure by treating the witness as court witness; and to allow the complainant to cross-examine him also---Said witness was to be treated as court witness, and permission should have been granted to the petitioner/complainant to cross-examine him---Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law---Impugned order was set aside, with direction to treat the statement of said witness (Sub-Inspector) as statement made by a court witness and allow the complainant to cross-examine him
0 Comments