Sonu Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1264 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16702 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Sonu Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri I.S. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 2.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Sonbhadra in S.T. No. 96 of 2015, arsing out of case crime no. 312 of 2015, under Sections 302/201 IPC, P.S. Chopan, District Sonbhadra.

Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the trial court has passed the impugned order erroneously rejecting his application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. whereby he had prayed that prosecution witness PW-1 and PW-8 need to be re-summoned for being cross-examined further because the earlier counsel engaged by him could not properly cross-examine those witnesses and several questions are left to be asked and now applicant had engaged another counsel, he would cross-examine them on the important aspects which were left from being clarified from the said witnesses.

I have gone through the impugned order and find that the court below has rejected the said application on the ground that a detailed cross-examination has been conducted by the learned counsel for the applicant before the trial court earlier. The said application was moved after four months after engaging new counsel and the case was fixed for the arguments and the said application had been moved only with a view to delay the proceedings. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8463 of 2020 (Amarjeet @ Kaluwa Vs. State of U.P. and another), in which description is made of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and it is held that the said section enables the court to find out the truth and render a just decision and has discretionary power to summon any person or a witness for even re-examination.

I do not agree with the argument made by the learned counsel for the applicant because discretion is given to the court concerned and not to the accused. It is settled law that for filling up the lacuna, the witnesses cannot be re-examined, hence no interference is required in the impugned order in the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Order Date :- 20.1.2021

A.P. Pandey