Paramjit Singh vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 6771 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33315 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Paramjit Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Durg Vijay Singh,Abhay Raj Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

The challenge in the present 482 application is to the orders dated 06th April, 2015 and 19th October, 2016. By the first order the Sessions Judge on an application purportedly moved by the applicant and numbered as 487 (Kha) had proceeded to discharge one Ms. Balvindra Kaur Brar, who had been summoned as a witness. This prayer was accepted by the Sessions Judge on 06th April, 2015. Thereafter on 19th October, 2016, the applicant filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C asserting therein that application 487 (Kha) had never been moved on their behalf and again a prayer was made that Ms. Balvindra Kaur Brar be summoned for examination as she was a material witness. This application has come to be rejected by the order of 19th October, 2016. The application numbered as 487 (Kha) is on record as Annexure 6. The order of 06th April, 2015, specifically records the statement of the counsel and the submissions advanced on the said application. The application was allowed on the statement made on behalf of the applicant and the witness was discharged. In the subsequent application dated 19th October, 2016, there is only a bald assertion that paper no. 487 (Kha) had never been moved. This application is neither supported by an affidavit nor was any separate application moved for rectification of the records.

In view of the above facts, the court below, in the opinion of this court has rightly proceeded to reject the application dated 19th October, 2016. In the absence of any steps have been taken to seek rectification of the record as also on the ground that the applicants took six months to move the second application, this Court finds no merit in the challenge laid to the order impugned.

The application is consequently dismissed.

Order Date :- 03.11.2016.

Vinod.