Allahabad High Court
Rahul Chabra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95958
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9293 of 2024
Applicant :- Rahul Chabra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Purushottam Mani Tripathi
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi along with Sri Dhanmohan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Rajeev Kumar Sonkar, State Law Officer for the State.
Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed by District and Sessions Judge, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2023 "Rahul Chhabra Vs. Deepak Gupta" u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 whereby the application u/s 311 and 391 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was convicted u/s 138 N.I. Act vide order dated 07.07.2023 and against the conviction order the applicant has preferred an appeal no. 99 of 2023 and during the appeal applicant has filed an application u/s 391 Cr.P.C. read with section 311 IPC on the ground that the applicant was examined on 28.06.2023 but he could not appear before the court on 30.06.2023 for cross examination because he was admitted in hospital but the court below closed his defence and pronounced the judgment of conviction, therefore, his application may be allowed and he be permitted to examine himself as the difence witness but the court below has rejected the same erroneously without considering the submission that permitting the applicant to examine himself as a defence witness and also cross examine himself, is in the interest of justice as during the trial though he was examined but his cross examination could not be conducted because defence was closed only because of one date he could not appear before the court below.
Per contra, counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. have submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and application was filed by the applicant just to delay the trial.
Considering the submission of the parties and perusal of record it appears, though the examination-in-chief of the applicant was available on record during trial but he could not be cross examined because his defence was closed as he could not appear on 30.06.2023, therefore, in the interest of justice, he shall be permitted to examine himself as defence witness. However, considering the fact that the trial is of the year 2021 and he was convicted on 07.07.2023, therefore to compensate the other side it would be appropriate that this application may be allowed subjection to condition that the applicant will deposit Rs. 5 lakhs before the appellate court within a period of 15 days.
In view of the above, the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-2nd, Gautam Budh Nagar by which the application no. 7B u/s 391 Cr.P.C. read with section 311 I.P.C. was rejected, is set aside and the court below is directed to pass a fresh order permitting the applicant to examine himself as defence witness as well as his cross examination. However, it is made clear that this application is allowed only permitting the applicant to examine himself as defence witness and court has not permitted to examine to any other defence witness at appellate stage.
With the aforesaid direction, the present application is disposed of.
It is made clear that the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs deposited by the applicant shall be invested by the concerned court in interest bearing scheme and shall be released to opposite party no. 2 as per final order of appellate court.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Nisha
