Court No. - 60
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18280 of 2018 Applicant :- Hirday Narain Singh Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in S.T. No.229 of 1997, (State Vs. Hirday Narain Singh & another) and for direction to the trial court to summon Virendra Singh, Ravindra Singh and Chitrasen Singh as defence witnesses.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as after close of prosecution evidence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the case was fixed for argument and in between the applicant had moved application for summoning two prosecution witnesses Virendra Singh and Ravindra Singh as a defence witness which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on Section 233 of Cr.P.C. contending that in view of Section 233 Cr.P.C. the defence has given an application to summon P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with one witness Chitrasen Singh. So far as summoning of witnesses as contained in Section 233 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the defence may produce any evidence which is in support of its case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. made his submissions in support of the impugned order.
Admittedly, in this case after framing of charges prosecution examined P.W.1 Virendra Singh, complainant of the case, and P.W.2 Ravindra Singh. Opportunity of cross-examination has been afforded to the defence and one witness, i.e. Chitrasen Singh, who is named in the charge sheet, has not been produced by the prosecution to support its case. It is relevant to mention here that at the final stage of hearing, the application was moved to summon the prosecution witnesses who had already been examined and one witness Chitrasen Singh, shown as P.W.4, was not examined by the prosecution. I am of the view that such application which has been moved with an ulterior motive has rightly been rejected by the court below. So I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference.
With the aforesaid observation, the application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Anand Sri./-