Vinod Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4440 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 655 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Vinod Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Partap Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Jitendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.1.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Varanasi in Crl. Appeal No. 74 of 2020 (CNR No. UPVR01-005564-2020, arising out of case crime no. 177 of 2001, under Sections 353, 332 IPC, P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi.

Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that trial court had acquitted the accused-revisionist for want of evidence as no evidence could be adduced from the side of prosecution despite sufficient opportunity and case was of the year 2003, hence being very old, prosecution evidence was closed and the accused-revisionist was accordingly acquitted there being no evidence.

Against the said acquittal judgment, criminal appeal no. 74 of 2020 was filed which was preferred by the State which has been allowed by the impugned judgment whereby the trial court's judgment and order dated 13.2.2020 has been set aside and case has been remanded with the direction to the court below that at least material witnesses be summoned and after recording their statements, the trail be conduced afresh.

Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that paragraph no. 11 of the appellate court's judgment clearly shows that even N.B.W. was issued for ensuring the presence of the informant of this case but his attendance could not be procured. However, it is also recorded in the said paragraph that it was not palpable from the order sheet as to whether any letter was written to the SHO and SSP for ensuring the presence of the witnesses.

Learned counsel for the revisionist prays that original record be summoned which would make it clear as to whether sufficient steps were taken by the court below becaue in his argument, he has vehemently pressed that entire processes were exhausted and attendance of the witnesses could not be procured then only evidence was closed.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2, returnable within three weeks. Steps be taken within a week.

Counter affidavit may be filed by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 by the next date.

List this case on 22.4.2021.

Let the lower court record be summoned by the next date.

Order Date :- 23.3.2021

A.P. Pandey