Revisional jurisdiction is to interfere in matters appearing illegal per se, must not be invoked to prolong the trial

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a recent case, the Court had to hear a revision petition against the order of Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra by which he dismissed the application moved by the petitioner/accused to recall the complainant as a witness under Section 311 CrPC for cross-examination.

The plea of the petitioner’s counsel who had replaced the earlier counsel who conducted the cross-examination of the complainant was that the earlier counsel did not put important questions to the witness and hence, his plea to recall the witness must be accepted. However, the same was dismissed by the judge challenging which the revision petition had been filed.

H.S. Madan, J. on hearing the petitioner observed that revisional jurisdiction of the Court is quite limited and the High Court can interfere only if there is any illegality or infirmity on the face of it. The Court in support of its observations relied upon the decision of Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar, (2016) 8 SCC 762. The Court held that the previous counsel had duly complied with her duties and she had no handicap in examining the witnesses.

The Court went on to say that the information that the counsel wants to seek can easily be gathered by the available documents and such a plea is nothing, but a tactic to prolong the trial. In light of these observations made, the Court dismissed the petition. [Ravan @ Parvej v. State of Haryana,  2017 SCC OnLine P&H 2206, decided on 04.09.17]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

two + 15 =