In Criminal Revision No. 788 of 2005, the single judge dismissed the revision filed against an order summoning witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the court held there was no material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court's decision.
The revision was dismissed as it lacked merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 788 of 2005
Revisionist :- Bhagwan Singh Alias Bhagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- A.K. Banerjee,Sharad Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
On the case being called out in the revised list, learned counsel for the revisionist is not present whereas, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It appears that this is a revision of the year 2005 and it is still awaiting admission.
This revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 25.11.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 3, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 855 of 2003 (State Vs. Bhagwan Singh), under sections 498-A, 302 IPC, P.S. Sakeet, District Etah by which, the learned trial court allowed the application filed under section 311Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as an eye witness for trial.
From perusal of impugned order, it appears that an application was given by D.G.C. (Criminal) for summoning those witnesses on the basis that P.W. 1-Bhim Sen who was examined before the court stated in his statement that these two persons also saw the whole incident. In such a situation, they were summoned by the impugned order.
It is always the prerogative of trial court either to summon a witness or not under section 311 Cr.P.C. and the trial court is authorized under law to summon or decline to summon any witness under section 311 Cr.P.C.
In view of above, there appears to be no material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
The revision lacks merit, hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.12.2019 RCT/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order summoning witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. suffers from material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error.
Bhagwan Singh Alias Bhagi
State of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
