Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31230 of 2018 Applicant :- Shiv Pratap Yadav @ Sadhu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Yadav,Brahma Nand Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application u/s 482 has been filed to quash the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by III Additional District and Session Judge, Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 19 of 2015 (State Vs. Govind and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 463 of 2014, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though it is true that the applicant had obtained an order from this Court for expeditious disposal of the trial proceedings, however, a very vital aspect of the case that has to be covered during the evidence of the key prosecution witness P.W.-6 namely Jitendra Pal Singh- the investigating officer of the case (and also the person who had prepared the recovery memo and had further dispatched the recovered fire-arm to the F.S.L., Lucknow under his own signature), has remained from been examined during such cross-examination.
4. In the above regard, it is submitted that while the recovery memo has been prepared by the said P.W.-6, and he had signed the dispatch document of the fire-arm those recovered for being sent to the F.S.L., Lucknow, during his cross-examination, he denied his signatures on such dispatch document. However, the prosecuting officer for the State did not immediately seek further examination of his witness on that aspect. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that no further or similar opportunity being sought by the applicant with respect to any other witness.
5. In view of the signature of the investigating officer being available on the other documents, that are marked as exhibit on the case, it is necessary to confront the said witness on that vital aspect. Unless such confrontation is made, the entire trial will come to a nought, though material and evidence exist otherwise.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, at present, it does appear that the ground raised is well-founded. In view of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, it cannot be said that the opportunity being sought by the victim was wholly frivolous or such as may be categorized to have been sought only for the purpose of causing delay. Thus, notwithstanding with the earlier order passed by this Court for expeditious disposal of the trial, it cannot be said that the learned court below had been restrained from passing appropriate orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.
7. Considering the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present application pending any further. The order dated 07.08.2018 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned court below to allow the applicant one date opportunity to further cross-examine P.W.-6 Jitendra Pal Singh, on the date and time of convenience to the learned court below.
8. The present application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Prakhar