Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21588 of 2019 Applicant :- Raghvendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2007 ( State Vs. Hari Shanker & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 308, 307 & 302 IPC, Police Station Ram Kola, District Kushi Nagar.
3. Short submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned court below has prematurely and hurriedly rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 233 Cr.P.C. on the first date of defence evidence. In this regard, the prosecution evidence was completed on 29.04.2019. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 04.05.2019 and thereafter the first date of defence evidence was 09.05.2019.
4. There being cross cases, the applicant filed an application on 09.05.2019 itself to summon Dr. A.K. Srivastava, Medical Officer and Constable Namonarain Tiwari. That evidence is stated to be crucial to the defence, in view of the fact that there are cross cases, arising from the incident that had taken place at the residence of the applicant and the fact that Dr. A.K. Srivastava had treated the applicant and other injured after the occurrence.
5. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned court below has rejected the application on the reasoning that the same has been filed seeking to delay the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the inference drawn by the learned court below is without any basis, inasmuch as, undisputedly, 09.05.2019 was the first date of defence evidence.
6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that the applicant seeks to delay the trial proceedings, inasmuch as no list of defence evidence has been disclosed to the learned court below.
7. Insofar as the facts of the present case, at present, arise for consideration, it does not appear that the applicant is delaying the trial, inasmuch as, upon close of the prosecution evidence on 29.04.2019, within a week therefrom, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and within a further week therefrom, the date of defence evidence had been fixed. The applicant did not seek any adjournment on that date but filed the application under Section 233 Cr.P.C. with respect to the two witnesses, who are not under his control. Insofar as, it is not the case of the prosecution and it is not the reason given by the learned court below that such evidence would be wholly irrelevant, the reason contained the impugned order is clearly based on irrelevant considerations.
8. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2007 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned court below to issue necessary directions to summon the said witnesses on the earliest date convenient to it. The trial itself may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 AHA