Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17444 of 2020 Applicant :- Bablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Etah against the applicant in S.T. No. 394 of 2013, Case No. 2076 of 2013 arising out of case crime no. 121 of 2013 under sections 302, 109 IPC and 3 (2) V SC/ST Act, Police Station Aliganj, Distric Etah and the court below may be directed to recall the witness Paan Singh as PW-1 and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order has been erroneously passed by the court below rejecting the application moved by the applicant under section 311 Cr.P.C only on the ground that he could not explain the delay of two years in moving the said application. This court enquired from the learned counsel for the applicant as to when PW-1 was recorded and reply was given that the said witness was examined on 30.5.2013 and the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examining the said witness, has been moved on 28.1.2019. He could not disclose the reason as to why long delay has been taken in identifying the mistake that some important question has not been asked by the earlier counsel for the applicant. It has also not been informed to the Court that when new counsel was engaged. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in cases of Raghunath vs. State of U.P. and another, [2020 (111) ACC 336] and Mohammad Shahid Siddiqui vs. State of U.P. and others, [2020 (110) ACC 517]. As against this, this Court would like to rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal vs. Prahalad Jat (2017) 9 SCC 340, in which it has clearly laid-down that delay in filing the application for recalling the witness is one of the important factors, which should be explained in the application under section 311 Cr.P.C and shall not be filed in a routine course. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to explain the delay, this is not found to be a fit case for interference. There is no infirmity found in the impugned order.
In view of the aforesaid, the application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 AU