Partly allowed

Amit Panwar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2020CRLR/134/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a criminal revision, held that although the revisionist had missed previous opportunities to cross-examine witnesses, a final chance would be granted conditional upon payment of court fees. The order mandated deposit of Rs. 30,000 within thirty days, failing which the opportunity to cross-examine would close automatically.

What did the court decide?

Last chance granted to cross-examine PWs 1 and 2 upon payment of Rs. 30,000 within 30 days; failure results in automatic closure.

Amit Panwar Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 134 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Amit Panwar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Revisionist :- Birendra Singh Khokher Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned Counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, District Meerut in Session Trial No.776 of 2011, State versus Dharm Prakash and others, (Crime No.146 of 2011), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 307 IPC, Police Station Medical, District Meerut by which trial Court dismissed the application of revisionist moved under Section 311 IPC.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is innocent. PWs 1 and 2 could not be cross examined from the side of revisionist by his Counsel for the reasons best known to him. Opportunity of cross examination has been closed. PWs 1 and 2 are eye witnesses, if the revisionist is not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, he will suffer irreperable loss and injury and proper justice would not be done with him.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that statements of PWs 1 and 2 was recorded during trial. Sufficient opportunity was given to revisionist for cross examination but his Advocate did not cross examine the witnesses and opportunity was closed. Earlier application was given by the revisionist before trial Court to cross examine the witnesses and trial Court afforded opportunity but revisionist did not avail the same. Revisionist is not interested to get it decided, on one and other reasons he is trying to linger the case.

¶9

It appears that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 was recorded in the year 2014 and application no.164-B was moved on behalf of revisionist on 17.09.2014 for recalling the witness PW-1 which has been allowed on 07.11.2014 with the condition that no adjournment will be allowed and if revisionist fails to cross examine, opportunity would stand closed. On 04.06.2015 witness appeared but cross examination was not made. Resultantly opportunity of cross examination was again closed.

¶10

Revisionist again moved application no.243-B to recall PWs 1 and 2 which has been dismissed by trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.12.2019 with a detailed order which is under challenge in the present revision.

¶11

Admittedly PWs 1 and 2 are still uncross examined although matter was ordered to be decided expeditiously by this Court. If revisionist is not allowed to cross examine the witnesses PWs 1 and 2, natural justice would not be available to him. Witnesses can be compensated in terms of money.

¶12

Considering over all circumstances of the case and rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties, it appears necessary in the interest of justice that one last chance may be given to the revisionist to cross examine PWs 1 and 2 but on payment of cost.

¶13

It is ordered that revisionist may be given a last chance to cross examine PWs 1 and 2 on payment of Rs.15,000/- to each witness.

¶14

It is clarified that entire amount of Rs.30,000/- will be deposited by revisionist before trial Court within a period of thirty days from today, before summoning the witnesses and if revisionist fails to deposit entire amount within stipulated period or to cross examine the witnesses present on the date fixed, he shall have no right to further cross examine and opportunity shall stand closed automatically.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, revision is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.1.2020 I.A.Siddiqui/Manoj

Amit Panwar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Panwar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh Lodhi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shivpratap Singh @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna @ Satyendra Pal Gurjar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Hasmeen @ Nazreen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vishwakarma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.