Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7544 of 2019 Applicant :- Ganesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no.1/State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 05.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F. T. C.-I, Ghaziabd in S. T. No. 301 of 2010 arising out of Case No. 1784 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad whereby the application dated 07.12.2018 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the accused has been rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 29.11.2016 the statement of defence witnesses namely DW1 Poonam Devi and DW2 Satrughan were recorded and the impugned C. D. was also submitted by the accused-applicant before the trial court. Thereafter, on 14.12.2016 was the date fixed for final argument in the matter but on account of one or another reason and as well as taking adjournment in the matter from either side of the parties, the case could not be concluded and is still pending. On 07.12.2018 an application was moved by the applicant with a prayer to summon the informant of the case and to send the impugned C.D. for it's forensic examination after taking voice sample of the informant. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perusing the record, I find that the application dated 07.12.2018 has not been moved in accordance with provisions of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the application dated 07.12.2018 cannot be allowed in view of law laiddown by the Apex Court in case of Anvar P. V. Vs. P. K. Basheer and Others 2014 (10) SCC Page 473. Apart from above, I also find that though the impugned C. D. was submitted before the trial Court on 29.11.2016 but application dated 07.12.2018 was moved after much delay while it is admitted case on record that the case is at the final stage of argument. The stage of defence evidence had already crossed much earlier on 14.12.2016. The trial Court has recorded the finding that it appears that application dated 07.12.2018 has been given by the accused only with a view to delay the trial.
In view of the above, I find that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order dated 05.01.2019 of the Trial Court in view of law laiddown by the Apex Court in case of Anvar P. V. (supra).
The application lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below immediately.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 AKT