Allahabad High Court
Suneel & Ors. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 27 August, 2021
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 510 of 2021
Revisionist :- Suneel & Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharm Trivedi,Ashutosh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Arun Kumar Singh on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard Shri Dharm Trivedi, learned counsel for the revisionists as well as Shri Arun Kumar Singh appearing for opposite party no.2 and learned counsel representing the State.
This Court has been informed that the case is fixed for the judgement today in the subordinate court and an order has also been passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Misc. Single No. 4710 of 2021 and had directed the trial court to conclude the trial of the case mentioned above within two months from the date of passing of the order i.e. 28.6.2021.
The instant revision petition has been preferred by the revisionists who are accused persons of Sessions Trial No. 217 of 2013, arising out of case Crime No. 1891 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376(2) Chha IPC, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri, requesting to set aside the order of the trial court dated 19.1.2021, whereby the request of the accused/ revisionists for summoning some witnesses in their defence, has been rejected by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that firstly the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12.7.2021 and was again recorded on 18.8.2021. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on 19.8.2021 by the accused persons to summon the informant, namely, Shri Niwas as well as the retired Principal of 'Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bastauli' and the Principal of the aforesaid School as witnesses in their defence, stating therein that the prosecution witnesses testified for the purpose of proving the age of the prosecutrix, have given contradictory statements and also there is contradiction in the age of the prosecutrix as shown in her T.C. pertaining to Class-IX and T.C. issued by the School with regard to the Class VIII and for this purpose the recording of evidence of the above mentioned witnesses is desired.
It is further submitted that the trial court while passing the order on the same day has rejected the request of the revisionists / accused persons on the ground that the testimony of these witnesses is not necessary for just disposal of the case and also on the ground that an order of the High Court dated 28.6.2021 passed in Misc. Single No.4710 of 2021 has been passed, wherein two months' time has been granted to the trial court to conclude the trial, from the date of order.
It is further submitted that the trial court appears to have been guided by the order of the High Court and did not touch the merits of the case and therefore the order passed by the trial court is against the law and the same be quashed.
Learned AGA on the other hand submits that by passing the aforesaid order, this Court had directed the subordinate court to conclude the trial within the period specified in the order and also the fact that the case is pending for disposal in the trial court since 2011 and there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that it is not disputed that the Coordinate Bench of this Clurt had passed an order dated 28.6.2021, whereby a direction has been given to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of two months. So far as the merits of the order of the trial court dated 19.8.2021 is concerned, it will be fruitful to peruse Section 233 of Criminal Procedure which for convenience is reproduced as under:-
"Section 233. Entering upon defence
(1) Where the accused is not acquitted under section 232 he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thercof.
(2) lf the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record.
(3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice."
A perusal of this Section would reveal that so far as summoning of the witnesses by defence is concerned a discretion has been given to the trial judge that the judge may refrain from issuing any process to the witnesses desired to be testified by the accused persons, if he considered, for reasons to be recorded, that such request has been made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. Thus it is apparent that discretion has been given by Legislature to trial court that the prayer of summoning some witnesses by accused persons may be refused.
I have perused the order of the trial court and in the background of the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionists, it is not in dispute that the charges against the revisionists have been framed under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376(2) Chha IPC. Thus having regard to the charges framed against the revisionist, I do no find any illegality in the order of the trial court as the evidence of the witnesses desired to be summoned by the revisionists appears to be not necessary for the just decision of the case.
It is also informed by learned counsel for opposite party no.2, which is also admitted to learned counsel for the revisionists that the case in the trial court is fixed for judgment today.
In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court it would not be in the interest of justice to disturb the trial at the stage when the same is fixed for pronouncement of the judgement.
In view of above reasons the revision preferred on behalf of the revisionists appears to be without any substance and the same is dismissed.
A copy of the order be immediately sent through fax to the trial court,
Order Date :- 27.8.2021
Muk
