28 August 2009
Supreme Court
Download

MANOJ SINGH Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Case number: Crl.A. No.-001658-001658 / 2009
Diary number: 19185 / 2007
Advocates: ABHIJIT SENGUPTA Vs RANA RANJIT SINGH


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1658    OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6787/2007]

 MANOJ SINGH ... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:

 STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.  ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.  Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the order dated  

26.2.2007  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Jharkhand  at  Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 878/2004.  Brief facts  which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are  recapitulated hereunder.

The appellant herein filed an application under  Section  217  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  for  recalling  of  PWs.  1,  2,  3,  6,  7  and  8  for  cross- examination on the ground that charge in this case was  altered on 13.9.2004. As admittedly the charge has been  altered and an  application  under Section 217 Cr.P.C.  has been filed, in the interest of justice, we are of  the opinion that the appellant should be granted an  opportunity  to  cross-examine  the  witnesses  after

2

recalling the same.  Learned counsel for the  appellant  

-2-

submits that it may not be necessary to cross-examine  Dr. Ajit Kumar  Chaudhary (PW-2).  

We accordingly direct PW-1 Prinka Kumar, PW-3  Yadunandan Singh, PW-6 Anil Kumar Singh, PW-7 Rajendra  Tripathi and PW-8 Faizal Ahmad shall appear before the  Trial  Court  on  14th September,  2009.  Learned  Trial  Court  would  try  the  examine  the  above-mentioned  witnesses  on  14th September,  2009  and  if  it  is  not  possible on that date, then the case may be taken up on  15th and 16th September, 2009 for cross-examination.  

The  cross-examination  shall,  however,  be  confined to the alteration of the charge.      

The Trial Court shall stick to the time schedule  and  would  not  entertain  any  unnecessary  and  unreasonable request for adjournment either on behalf  of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused persons.  

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

3

.....................J   (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 28, 2009.