Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2594 of 2003 Revisionist :- Satish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Nitin Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- Heard Sri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2- This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist-Satish challenging the order dated 5.9.2003 passed by Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Session Trial no.132 of 1993, under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. whereby the application under Section 311 I.P.C. for recall of the witnesses, namely P.W.7-U.C. Gupta, P.W.8-A.H.Zaidi and P.W.9-Parmeshwar Ram were rejected. Hence this revision.
3- Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without application of mind. 4-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order is just and legal and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
5- From perusal of the record, it transpires that P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9 were requested to summon for cross-examination.
6- From perusal of the impugned order, it also transpires that when the matter was fixed for statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the application was moved after taking sixteen days time only to delay the session trial. Hence the application was dismissed.
7- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
8- Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
9- Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 OP