Allahabad High Court
Ranjit Kaur And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 January, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 683 of 2020
Revisionist :- Ranjit Kaur And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shivendra Raj Singhal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indra Deo Mishra,Shri Ram (Rawat)
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the State, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Shivendra Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Indra Deo Mishras, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. appearing for State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions/Special Judge, Rampur rejecting the application of the revisionists for summoning the documents, which are in possession of the witness PW-3, Head Constable Tejveer Singh and order dated 07.02.2020 whereby the court below had closed the cross-examination of PW-3 in S.T. No.379 of 2017 (State vs. Amanveer Singh and others) arising out of case crime no. 0419 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 506 IPC, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionists that PW-3, Head Constable Tejveer Singh was present at scene of occurrence and he was examined by the prosecution side, who was earlier suspended but later on, his suspension was revoked and has been reinstated. It is further argued that the explanation of the said suspended officer/witness in this case given before the Enquiry Officer, should be summoned before the Court at the time of cross-examination being done from the side of the accused-revisionist. Besides that, it is further argued by him that the G.D. by which the PW-3 proceeded at the place of occurrence that should also be directed to be summoned and since request made by the accused-revisionists regarding these papers to be summoned before cross-examination, the trial court has rejected the same erroneously by the impugned order dated 06.02.2020, hence this revision has been preferred.
I have gone through the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 and have read the entire order word by word and find that there is no infirmity in this order. Revision as regards the order dated 06.02.2020 deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
The other order, which has been challenged in this revision is dated 07.2.2020 whereby the application of the revisionist has been rejected. In the said application, it was mentioned from the side of the learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Khalil Ullah Khan before the court below that the applicant's counsel was not feeling well due to old age, extreme cold cough and viral fever and he had yet to resume daily routine and was unable to attend the Court, therefore, prayer was made for deferment of the cross-examination for fortnight or a week, the same was also rejected by the impugned order dated 7.2.2020.
In this order the trial court has recorded that there is an order passed by this Court in the present matter that it should be heard on day-to-day basis as PW-3 Tejveer Singh, who is a police official had come to court on each date for evidence and yesterday also adjournment was given which was rejected and thereafter 7.2.2020 was fixed as last opportunity and in these circumstances, it was assumed by the Court that probably the accused-revisionist did not want to cross-examine the witness PW-3, hence opportunity was closed for cross-examination and further it is mentioned that extensive and complete cross-examination of the said witness had already been made by the accused persons Farukh and Rizwan. This is a case of the year 2017. There was an order of this Court passed in Crl. Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 31825 of 2019 directing that this case may be decided on day-to-day basis and the court below shall not grant any adjournment on flimsy ground but for exceptional circumstances, reason shall be recorded in writing, failing which the Presiding Officer will be answerable. It appears that because of this reason, the trial court has rejected the application for cross-examination.
During argument, it is also pointed out that there are seven accused and from the side of the other accused, cross-examination of PW-3 has been done, therefore, it appears that the remaining accused can also move such an application only to get the case pending.
In view of the aforesaid, this revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021
AU
