The court rejected an application under Section 482 challenging an order refusing to summon a defence witness. The court found the applicant to be adopting delay tactics and found no illegality in the lower court's order.
Application under Section 482 dismissed; court below directed to proceed in accordance with law.
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. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4674 of 2021
Applicant :- Pradeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Kushwaha
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused.
By means of this application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 11.1.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) rejecting the application 78-Kha with regard to summon the defence witness namely Dr. Anjana Gupta.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the applicant is adopting the delay tactics for avoiding the final order be passed in this case and has also moved several applications only with the intention to delay the final order be passed in this case. Since the present application has been filed in the month of January 2021 before this Court, the applicant is taking benefit of the pendency of this application and delaying the proceeding of the case pending before the court below.
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the order dated 11.1.2021 and I find that there is no illegality in the aforesaid order and the court below has rightly rejected the application-78 Kha.
From the averments made in the application as well as from the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant is trying to delay the proceeding of the case pending before the court below and has also moved several applications so that any final order may not be passed in this case and from the averments made in the application itself shows that the said application was filed on the date when the case was fixed for final arguments and on the same day the applicant engaged a new counsel to appear in this case. The action of the applicant clearly indicates that he is not interested to get the case finally decided as he is adopting the delay tactics. The court below has rightly rejected the said application and there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.1.202. I do not find it to be a fit case and does not want
to interfere with it.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed and the court below is directed to proceed in this case in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 SA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application to summon a defence witness is liable to be interfered with on appeal.
Pradeep
State of U.P.
Another
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
