Nadim @ Shoyeb vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3252 ALL

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3252 ALL
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2021

Allahabad High Court

Nadim @ Shoyeb vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 9 March, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 30 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Nadim @ Shoyeb
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Irfan Alam,Syed Ahmad Mehdi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act-I, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No.75 of 2014 whereby the learned Sessions Court has rejected the application of the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.

The sessions trial in respect of the offences registered in Crime No.190 of 2014, under Sections 363, 364, 376, 302, 504, 506, 419, 420 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act is against the accused Nadim @ Shoyeb, who is revisionist herein. After the evidence was concluded, the charge was amended by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 22.09.2020. The only difference is the timing of the incident dated 16.08.2014 which was by mistake in the previous charge mentioned as 4.30 p.m. instead of 8.00 p.m. However, in the FIR itself time of incident is mentioned as 8.00 p.m. The prosecution had specifically stated that it did not want to lead any further evidence in respect of the amended charge.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the revisionist to re-examine the prosecution witnesses. It appears that the accused-revisionist is only interested in prolonging the trial and he is not interested in its early conclusion.

In view of the aforesaid, this revision is dismissed.

However, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and pronounce the judgment within a period of two months from today.

Order Date :- 9.3.2021

Anand Sri./-