Court No. - 24
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4617 of 2003 Applicant :- Beni Madho And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
This application calls in question an order passed by the trial Judge in Sessions Trial No. 332 of 1992 (State Vs. Beni Madho & Ors.) under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 325 IPC, P.S. Phoolpur, District Allahabad, in terms of which an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the prosecution has been allowed.
The submission of the learned counsel was that at a stage when the trial Judge proceeded to record secondary evidence rather than summoning witnesses for examination, applicants had approached this Court challenging the procedure so adopted, but the same was negatived and the writ petition dismissed on 15 July 2002. He, therefore, submits that now summoning the witnesses for examination after the defence has been disclosed, has clearly prejudiced the rights of the applicants.
The Court finds itself unable to sustain this contention for the reason that the right of the applicant of cross examination has not been taken away. It is also not disputed that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can always be invoked at any stage prior to closure of the proceedings. More fundamentally, the Court notes that the order impugned clearly falls within the specie of what the Supreme Court chose to describe as intermediary orders having no lasting impact on the rights of parties. The Court in this regard refers to the decision in Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI, 2017 SCC OnLine 766.
The application is consequently dismissed. Interim order stands discharged.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 VKS