Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 634 (ALL)

Deepak v. State of U. P.

2014-02-19

RAMESH SINHA

body2014
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha,J.: - Heard Sri H. C. Mishra holding brief of Sri D. B. Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Sri R. K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to set aside the order dated 3.1.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13th, Meerut in S.T. No.598 of 2012 (State Vs. Deepak) under Sections 307, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Devrala, District Meerut and permit the applicant to cross examine the P.W-I Manoj Kumar and P.W.-II Anuj Kumar in the aforesaid case. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that he has moved an application for recalling the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 namely Manoj Kumar (Complainant) and Anuj Kumar (Injured). He submitted that the learned Magistrate has closed opportunity of cross examination of the said witnesses by passing the impugned order, which is illegal. He further submitted that the prejudice would be caused to the applicant for fair trial, if the said witnesses were not allowed to be cross examined. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing and pointed out that though the applicant was present on the date when the witnesses have came for cross examination, but his two counsel who did not cross examined the said two witnesses due to personal reason and made some lame excuses, hence the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the applicant. 5. Considered the facts and circumstance of the case as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for parties. 6. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that cross examination of the said two witnesses have been closed by the trial Court due to the delaying tactics of the two counsel who had not tried to cross examine the two witnesses present on the date fixed. 7. Taking into account the argument of the learned counsel for applicant that prejudice will be caused to the applicant for fair trial if the applicant is not allowed the cross examination of the aforesaid two witnesses. Hence the trial Court is directed to fix another date for cross examination of aforesaid two witnesses subject to the condition that applicant deposits a cost of Rs.20,000/- before the trial Court within 10 days from today i.e. on 03.03.2014. Hence the trial Court is directed to fix another date for cross examination of aforesaid two witnesses subject to the condition that applicant deposits a cost of Rs.20,000/- before the trial Court within 10 days from today i.e. on 03.03.2014. It is further made clear that the cross examination of the said two witnesses will be completed by the trial Court as far as possible on the date fixed except due to unavoidable circumstances another date will be fixed and it should be concluded positively on the said date. The cost so deposited shall be given to the aforesaid two witnesses by the trial Court. If the applicant fails to deposit the cost as directed above, then the trial Court is free to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of.