Allowed

Om Shri v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019A482/45412/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This同为 an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall an Investigating Officer for cross-examination after the lower court closed the opportunity due to counsel's delay. The court directed the lower court to recall the witness and allow cross-examination within ten days, exempting the applicant from witness costs due to his imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to recall PW-4 and allow cross-examination within ten days; no cost imposed due to applicant's imprisonment.

Om Shri Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45412 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Om Shri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Savita Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Learned learned counsel for the applicant, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 154 of 2014 (State Vs. Om Sri) arising out of Case Crime No. 612 of 2013, under sections 363,366,376-D IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar has been rejected.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 2013. It is next argued that after issuance of notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C. for securing the presence of Investigating Officer to appear before the Court on 30.09.2019 for recording the examination-in-chief, his cross-examination did not take place. Further, it appears that the applicant's counsel was busy in some other case and stated that Investigating Officer has come after a long gap, he will not complete the cross-examination today and communicated at 2.30 P.M. that he is busy in some another matter.

¶8

The trial court rejected the adjournment application and closed the opportunity of cross-examination of Investigating Officer and has fixed for statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant who is languishing in jail for the past about six years can not be made to suffer on account of any in-action of his lawyer and there was no wilful default on the part of the applicant and without complete cross examination of the Investigating Officer, the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, in the interest of justice an application for recalling the Investigating Officer for cross-examination may be allowed.

¶10

Without entering into the merits of the impugned order, I may record that the learned Judge had no option but to close the

¶11

opportunity of cross examination on account of statement made by learned counsel for the accused applicant. However, as the applicant is in jail since six years, he should be provided an opportunity of cross-examination of the Investigating Officer.

¶12

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that applicant shall move an application along with certified copy of this order before the court concerned within ten days from today for recalling the P.W. 4 S.I. Surya Pratap Singh and the court concerned shall recall the P.W. 4 and fix a date for his appearance on which date the deponent defence shall cross examine P.W.4.

¶13

As the applicant is in jail, I do not find it proper to direct the applicant to pay the cost of travel and other expenses of the said witness.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, the instant application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.12.2019 RPD

Om Shri v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Shri v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Braj Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Kishan Vs State of U.P.

Santosh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Vs State of Up and Another

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others