Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 348 of 2021 Applicant :- Lalit Mohan Poswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Kumar Dwivedi,Vinod Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. None for the applicant. Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. It is submitted that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 18.11.2020 and 24.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No.332 of 2015 (State vs. Lalit Mohan Poswal) by which court has rejected Application No.138 Kha dated 04.11.2020 and Application Nos.142 Kha/1 to 142 Kha/3 dated 24.11.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that earlier Application U/S 482 No.34968 of 2019 was filed on behalf of the respondents herein- Lajja Ram Bainsla, which is still pending. It is submitted that earlier another Application U/S 482 No.40854 of 2017 for expeditious disposal of the pending Sessions Trial No.332 of 2015, when vide order dated 06.12.2017, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the court concerned to decide the aforesaid case within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
4. It is evident from the perusal of the application numbered as 138 Kha/1 that it is filed on behalf of the accused to summon records kept by Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheater Park way, Mountain View California U.S.A. so to verify the documents produced on record as Document No. 62 Kha/5, 62 Kha/3 and 62 Kha/6 as originals of those documents are available with the said Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheater Park way, Mountain View California U.S.A.
5. Another application marked as 142 Kha/1 is filed to call for the certified copies of the documents 62 Kha/5, 62 Kha/3 and 62 Kha/6 from the office of Google LLC through the U.S. Embassy situated in Delhi.
6. Vide order dated 18.11.2020, learned ADJ rejected the application no.138 Kha on the ground that documents 62 Kha/3, 62 Kha/5 and 62 Kha/6 are regarding matrimonial site Jeevan Sathi.Com. It has been noted that these documents will not serve any purposes for the conclusion of the case. It is also mentioned in the order that 14 defence witnesses were examined till the date of the order and there is no justification for calling for the evidence as submitted by the applicant from the Google LLC Company, thus rejected the application.
7. Vide order dated 24.11.2020, Court has made reference to its earlier order dated 18.11.2021 and has categorically mentioned that the said application has been filed with a view to delay the trial.
8. It has come on record that since earlier order dated 18.11.2020 was passed rejecting application to the same affect, therefore, second application on the same facts could not be granted as a criminal has no jurisdiction to review its earlier order.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the respondents, provision of Section 91 Cr.P.C. authorizes any Court if it considers production of any document or other thing to be necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code to issue summons, directing the person in whose possession of power such document or thing is believed to be requiring him to attend it, or to produce it at the time and place stated in the summons or order. The use of words "necessary or desirable" for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding in Section 91(1) leaves no doubt that there is built in limitation inherent therein and the sine-qua-non of an order under this section is a consideration by the Court that the production of the documents concerned is desirable and necessary for the purposes of trial. Section 91 does not confer absolute right of accused whether the document has no relevance on the case in hand, nor it is desirable for the Court to summon them, then Court shall reject the application filed under Section 91. Thus, it is evident that firstly it is not a matter of right for the accused and it is evident that applicant is interested in only delaying the conclusion of the trial. He did not challenge the order dated 18.11.2020 and moved subsequent applications to the same affect which apparently reveals that he is guilty of misusing the process of the Court by moving similar applications consecutively despite rejection of one application moved on the same ground. There no illegality in the impugned order calling for interference. Therefore, application fails and is rejected.
10. It is directed that now the trial court without affording any adjournment to the respondent shall conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of computer generated copy of this order and will also take into account if any application is filed by the applicant, in the misuse of the process, which have already been decided, then will be free to impose heavy cost on the applicant.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Ravi/-