Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42933 of 2019 Applicant :- Kuldeep Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, 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 orders dated 02.11.2019 and 21.10.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No.2, Bareilly in Special Case No. 6 of 2014 (State vs. Kuldeep Saxena) arising out case crime no. 9 of 2012, under section 7/13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Chhajlet, District Moradabad and also a prayer is made for a direction to the court below to provide opportunity to produce Sanjay Kumar Saxena (Lekhpla) to examine him as defence witness.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution evidence has been closed and the statement of accused has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he had submitted an application, paper no. 23 Kha before the trial court, which was photocopy of the proceedings under section 122B of UP ZA & LR Act and the same has been rejected from being taken on record vide impugned order dated 21.10.2019 erroneously and simultaneously the trial court has also closed the opportunity of the applicant to adduce evidence. It is further argued that the applicant had already moved an application before the trial court on 2.11.2019 praying therein that he may be permitted to examine Lekhpal, Sanjai Kumar Saxena as a defence witness but even the said application has been rejected and liberty has been declined which is an illegal order, hence it is prayed that both the orders need to be set aside and liberty to the applicant needs to be given to bring on record the certified copy of the document i.e. paper no. 23 Kha, which he has obtained subsequently and he should also be permitted to cross-examine Sanjai Kumar Saxena, Lekhpal as a defence witness.
I find that both the orders have been erroneously passed by the trial court as the liberty ought to have been given to the applicant to file certified copy of document i.e. paper no. 23 Kha which now he has obtained and he should also be allowed to examine the defence witness i.e. Lekhpal Sanjai Kumar Saxena.
Since this is legal matter, therefore, without issuing any notice to the opposite party no. 2, this application is being disposed of finally.
The trial court is directed to permit the accused-applicant to file certified copy of paper no. 23 Kha and also to examine Sanjai Kumar Saxena, Lekhpal as a defence witness for which a date shall be fixed and on which the said witness would be examined without undue adjournment being given to either side. If the opposite party no. 2 has any grievance, he nay approach this court.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 AU