Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24626 of 2018 Applicant :- Jitendra @ Neetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Misra,Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to challenge the order dated 6.7.2018 passed by the Session Judge, Court no. 1, Etah in S.T. No. 353 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 559 of 2009 (State Vs. Jitendra @ Neetu and Another), under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Court no. 1, District Etah, whereby the application filed by the applicant for adjournment to lead evidence, has been rejected.
The solitary argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is that while defence evidence has been led, on the date fixed being 6.7.2018, D.W.-1 fell ill, and therefore, he could not appear in the court. In such fact, the application for adjournment was moved by the applicant on the same day which was allowed by the learned court below.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that though the trial is old, it remained stayed upon an order passed by this court. At the stage of evidence, it has been submitted that the applicant had only sought one earlier adjournment on account of death of this brother. It is further stated that if allowed, the applicant would complete the evidence of D.W.-1 on two dates.
Then reliance has been place on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of G.R.Gulati Vs. State of U.P. & another 2014 (3)JIC 729 (Alld), wherein in paragraphs 6 and 9 it has been held as below:
"6. .....There is a duty cast upon the court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is the examination of witnesses of its own accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a position to speak important relevant facts.
9. .....The prompt decision of criminal case is to be commended and encouraged but in reaching at these results, the accused, who are charged with a serious offence, must not be stripped of his valuable right of a fair and impartial trial because it would be negation of concept of due process of law. Regardless of the merits of the case, the court has not only to look into the case of the prosecution but has also to keep in mind the defence version."
In such circumstances, the rejection of the application does not appear to be proper in light of the principle laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of G.R.Gulati Vs. State of U.P. (supra). Considering the fact that the offence alleged is grave and serious being under Section 302 I.P.C., order dated 6.7.2018 passed by the Session Judge, Court no. 1, Etah cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside with a direction that the applicant may be allowed one opportunity of not more than two dates to conclude examination of D.W.-1 on not more than two dates. Further defence evidence may also be led efficiently and expeditiously without seeking undue or long adjournments.
The present application is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Prakhar