Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12866 of 2018 Applicant :- Pintoo @ Pintoo Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sadhu Sharan
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Criminal Misc. Modification Application No. 3 of 2019 This is an application for modification of my order dated 17.04.2018, where the order impugned is one dated 06.04.2018 made on the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. passed in S.T. No. 183 of 2017 'State vs/ Ajay Kumar' (arising out of Case Crime No. 1057 of 2017) under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sadiyabad, District Ghazipur. By the said order, the applicant who was exculpated during investigation and is a brother-in-law of the deceased, has been summoned to stand his trial on the basis of dock evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the evidence led at the trial is not of such high quality on the basis of which an exculpated applicant after a full-fledged investigation, ought to have been summoned. Accordingly, notice was issued and this Court, being informed that the Trial Judge was proceedings to deliver judgement against the accused, including the applicant who has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., passed an interim order directing that until 07.05.2018, the Trial Court will not pass judgment in the trial under Section 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The interim order made is in the following terms:
"Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, it is directed that until 07.05.2018, the trial court will not pass judgment S.T. No. 183 of 2017 'State vs. Ajay Kumar' (arising out of Case Crime No. 1057 of 2017) under Section 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S Sadiyabad, District Ghazipur, though the proceedings may go on."
A perusal of the interim order shows that this Court had intended to stay delivery of judgment as against the applicant Pintoo @ Pintoo Kumar, and not against other chargesheeted accused as would appear from the words "though the proceedings may go on." It appears that on account of a typographical error words to indicate that delivery of judgment as against Pintoo @ Pintoo Kumar alone, the applicant here alone was stayed and not the other accused was mistranscribed leading to a direction staying delivery of judgment in the trial. But at the same time, directing that "though the proceedings may go on", it is evident that delivery of judgment relating to the present applicant alone was stayed vide order dated 17.04.2018, and not the other accused.
It is accordingly directed that the order dated 17.04.2018 is modified to the extent that the stay will operate in favour of the applicant alone and will not enure to the benefit of the other accused arrayed in the said trial. There is absolutely no impediment to proceed with the trial as against all other accused, except Pintoo @ Pintoo Kumar.
It is further clarified by this order, that the interim order dated 17.04.2018 will not be deemed to be extended unless it has already been extended by the appropriate bench. It is a modification of the order as was passed on 17.04.2018.
The modification application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
The modification application having been disposed of, the matter will not be treated as part heard or tied up.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Deepak