Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2079 of 2019 Revisionist :- Lalit Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vidya Bhushan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.S.G.I.,Gyan Prakash,Sikandar B. Kochar
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist today in Court, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Prem Shanker, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T.No.765 of 2014 (State Vs. Sunil and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.25 of 2014, under Sections 302, 307, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Bhaurakala, District Muzaffar Nagar rejecting the application (Paper No.146 Kha) dated 6.5.2019 of the revisionist under Section 233 Cr.P.C. for summoning the three defence witnesses.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is facing trial and he filed an application dated 6.5.2019 for examining the defence witnesses, i.e., Dr. Manish Jain and Dr. Dharmendra E.M.O. under whom treatment of his mental ailment was going on, the said application has been rejected by the trial Court by passing the impugned order. He further submitted that another application under Sections 328/329 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the revisionist on 10.5.2019 as Paper No.155- Kha, which too has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 14.5.2019, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure SA-2 to the supplementary. He next submitted that the trial Court has committed gross error in rejecting both the aforesaid applications of the applicant and passed the impugned orders dated 6.5.2019 and 14.5.2019 and if the revisionist is not allowed to examine the defence witnesses, then his trial would be prejudiced.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as C.B.I. have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the impugned order and submitted that the case is of the year 2007 and trial is at the stage of argument, the statement of the revisionist has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no where in his statement he has taken any defence that at the time of the incident he was suffering from any mental ailment and the plea which has been taken by him by means of the aforesaid two applications, which have been referred above, the same were rejected by the trial Court, goes to show that the revisionist while giving his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was in full conscious state of mind. The arguments are to be advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and judgement is to be pronounced in the said case by the trial Court, hence, it is dilatory tactics on the part of the revisionist in moving the said applications which have rightly been rejected by the trial Court.
I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 6.5.2019 and also 14.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar and find that the same does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety or jurisdictional error. Hence the revision lacks merit. It is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 NS