Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14161 of 2021 Applicant :- Ramesh Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Mohan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Sri Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge/E.C. Act, Gorakhpur in Special Session Trial No. 115 of 2012 (State vs. Ramesh Gupta) whereby an application under Section 310 Cr.P.C. has been rejected for inspection of the premises, where it is alleged that electricity meter has been tampered by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant in question has been discharged in the matter of theft of electricity and the only charge, which is subsisting against him, is in regard to tampering with the meter. It is his contention that the premises in which said meter is said to be existing is not belonging to the applicant and for this purpose he had moved an application for inspection as provided under Section 310 Cr.P.C.
Ms. Rishu Mishra, learned counsel for respondent-2 in her turn submits that applicant is filing successive applications at every stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. just to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that initially an FIR regarding tampering of meter was registered against applicant in the year 2011 registering Case Crime No. 294 of 2011 and for long 10 years, applicant has been trying to derail the prosecution and till date, even charge could not be framed against applicant.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing the provisions contained under Section 310 Cr.P.C., it is evident that local inspection as provided under Section 310 Cr.P.C will come into picture when the court is of the opinion that such local inspection is necessary for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given on such inquiry or trial. In the present case, it is evident that applicant has not co-operated with the court below and has not even allowed framing of charges. Therefore, this is not the stage for a local inspection and in any case, it is always open to applicant to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the aspect of location of the so called tampered meter or when appropriate stage comes, then to produce evidence in rebuttal by presenting defence witnesses of the premises in which alleged tampered meter was found, does not belong to applicant.
In view of such discussion, I am of the opinion that for the present, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order.
Application fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Shalini