Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30862 of 2019 Applicant :- Ravindra Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Awasthi,Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
By means of this application, applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.5.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in Criminal revision No. 36 of 2017, whereby the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-examine PW-2, has been rejected by the court below.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that some important questions could not be asked and therefore it was the duty of the court to allow the application and to permit the re-examination of PW-2.
To the contrary, learned A.G.A. submitted submitted that the accused persons were given more than reasonable opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses, therefore, the accused persons had all the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on all the points. Accordingly, this application has rightly been rejected by the trial court on valid reasons.
I have gone through the impugned order and found that the conclusions noted by the trial Court, while deciding the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., are appropriate and just. I do not find any bonafides in the application of the applicant, while seeking the permission of the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of P.W.-2 only on the ground that some important questions have been left to be asked. Learned Sessions Judge has specifically mentioned that plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. The power available with the Court to prevent injustice has to be exercised only if the court for valid reasons, feels that injustice is caused to a party. In any case, trial court has mentioned in its order that the question sought to be asked from witnesses have already been asked and there is nothing in the application to suggest that it was not within the knowledge of the applicant that vague answers were given by the witnesses either when witness was recorded or at the time of examination of subsequent witnesses.
Perusal of the impugned order reflects that there is no illegality in the rejection of application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The court is only to ensure that accused has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses and to defend himself. It is also the duty of the court to ensure that the right to cross-examination should not be permitted to be used as a weapon to delay the disposal of the trial at the mercy of the accused persons.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Ashok Gupta