Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24284 of 2018 Applicant :- Shafeeq And 6 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vindeshwari Prasad Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.
The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the orders dated 30.01.2018, 09.05.2018 and 19.06.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Amroha (J.P.Nagar) in S.T. No. 447 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Shafeeq and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1529 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325, 427 & 506 IPC, Police Station Didauli, District J.P.Nagar.
At the outset, it may be noted that by the order dated 30.01.2018, the learned court below had only recorded the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and posted the matter for hearing on 07.02.2018. The grievance with respect to this order is that the matter has been posted for hearing without affording any opportunity to the applicants to lead evidence. However, subsequently, the applicants were allowed to lead evidence by order dated 07.02.2018. Consequently, the challenge raised to the order dated 30.01.2018 does not arise/survive.
Then challenge has been raised to the order dated 09.05.2018, by which the learned court below had rejected the application of the applicants to club the Sessions Trial with S.T. No. 448 of 2010.
Learned counsel for the applicants states that both trial arise out of same incident and therefore, the same should have been heard together.
Perusal of the order reveals that the application of the applicants has been rejected on the ground that the present sessions trial is an old case, therefore, it must be decided expeditiously.
However, no discussion exits why the present sessions trial is not to be clubbed with Sessions Trial No. 448 of 2010. The applicants appear to have filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was rejected. Against that rejection order, the applicants further appear to have filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14406 of 2017, which is stated to be still pending. However, it is admitted to the applicants that there is no interim order operating therein. Consequently, there is no bar operating for disposal of the Sessions Trial No. 448 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, since there is no stay order granted by this Court. Mere rejection of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and pendency of the writ petition arising therefrom would not be a ground to get those proceedings stayed.
However, insofar as the order dated 09.05.2018 is concerned, the same clearly appears to be erroneous and it is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned court below to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law, on the parameter laid down by the Supreme Court for purpose of determining whether the Sessions Trial No. 448 of 2010 has to be clubbed. Such exercise may be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Insofar as the challenge has been raised to the order dated 19.06.2018, it is submitted that the prosecution evidence had been completed only on 23.01.2018. Thereafter the applicants brought on record certain documentary evidence on 15.02.2018. However, it is stated that the applicants did not get any opportunity to prove the same. Though, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any gross error, however, it is not clear as to why the applicants did not avail any opportunity to prove the documents relied upon by the applicants.
Still, in the interest of justice, the order dated 19.06.2018 is hereby set aside, subject to payment of cost Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the applicants on the next date fixed before the learned court below.
Subject to the aforesaid cost being deposited by the applicants, the learned court below shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the applicants to lead both oral and documentary evidence. The applicants further undertake not to seek any undue or long adjournment. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within a period of one month from production of a certified copy of this order.
In view of the aforesaid observation, the instant application is
disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Lbm/-