Dismissed

Vikas Singh Alias Rajan Singh and Anoth v. State of U.P.Thru. Its Prin.Secry.Deptt.Home Civilsecrt.Lko and Anoth

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2022/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the applicants failed to provide cogent reasons for delay and did not avail the opportunities for cross-examination granted by the trial court over eight years.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling prosecution witnesses was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Vikas Singh Alias Rajan Singh and Anoth Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 108 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Singh Alias Rajan Singh And Anoth Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru. Its Prin.Secry.Deptt.Home Civilsecrt.Lko And Anoth Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 20.11.2021 passed by Additional Sesssions Judge, Court No.4, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No.336 of 2013 (State Vs. Vikas Singh).

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the specific provisions under section 311 Cr.P.C., the witnesses can be summoned at any stage of trial for re-examination. It is submitted that court below was bound to recall and re-examine both the witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2. However, instead of recalling the witnesses, trial court has rejected the application(s) filed by the applicants on frivolous grounds and also on the ground of delay, which is illegal.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the order impugned is well reasoned order having been passed after providing ample opportunity to the applicants to cross-examine the witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2, however, the petitioners have not availed the opportunity afforded by the trial court.

¶10

On due consideration to the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record as also the impugned order, it appears that while giving application under section 311 Cr.P.C., applicants have not stated any valid and cogent reason so as to persuade the trial court to exercise jurisdiction under section 311 Cr.P.C. Learned trial court has rightly observed that after the examination-in-chief of P.W.1, which was completed on 06.08.2014, several dates were fixed for completion of cross-examination. however, even after those opportunities when the applicants have not completed the cross-examination, the opportunity to cross-examine was closed on 06.02.2016.

¶11

Likewise, examination-in-chief of P.W.2, Beena Singh was completed on 21.01.2020 and detailed cross-examination was made by the accused side till 17.02.2021. Learned trial court has observed that in the application under section 311 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicants has not disclosed as to the points they want to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.

¶12

Perusal of the order impugned in the petition further discloses that the application has been rejected as the matter is quite old pertaining to year 2013 and after eight years, there is no occasion to permit the accused persons to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal Vs Prahlad Jat and others 2013 (9) SCC 314 has held that power under section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice.

¶14

In the case in hand, it appears that the petitioners have moved the application for recall of the witnesses, noted above, after inordinate delay and while moving the application along with the affidavit in support thereof, no cogent and valid explanation has been given. There appears to be no illegality in the order under challenge.

¶15

In view of aforesaid discussion as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal (supra), the application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 11.1.2022 Saif

Vikas Singh Alias Rajan Singh and Anoth v. State of U.P.Thru. Its Prin.Secry.Deptt.Home Civilsecrt.Lko and Anoth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Singh Alias Rajan Singh and Anoth v. State of U.P.Thru. Its Prin.Secry.Deptt.Home Civilsecrt.Lko and Anoth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Shadab and Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Sakeena Bano and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Lko and Anr.

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.Pthru Prin Secy Home and Another

Kali Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Govind Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of U.P Civil Secy and Anoth

Smt. Farzana and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Homeand Another