Dismissed

Mukhtar Ahmed v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2022A482/39924/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant sought to summon a doctor who prepared bed head ticket and discharge slip. The High Court found the trial court correctly dismissed the application as the medical report was already proved and there was no absolute necessity to examine the witness, especially given the case's age.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Mukhtar Ahmed Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39924 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mukhtar Ahmed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for applicant and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti Corruption (UPSEB), Varanasi in Sessions Trial No.508 of 2006 arising out of case crime no.C38 of 1998 (State vs.Obedurrahman & others), under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

¶7

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he moved an application to summon a Medical Officer, who treated the injured, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. but his application was dismissed arbitrarily, without good ground. If the witness is not summoned or examined, he shall suffer irreparably and decision of the case on merit may be adversely affected.

¶8

I have gone through the papers on record.

¶9

Admittedly medical report of injured Salahuddin was proved by P.W.7 Sailendra Kumar Singh. Now the applicant desires to call a doctor who, as per his statement, prepared the bed head ticket and discharge slip.

¶10

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that no copy of bed head ticket was on record. The name of the doctor who allegedly treated the injured was not disclosed. The applicant has failed to demonstrate as to how examination of a witness who merely treated the injured was a absolute necessity for adjudication of criminal case. Learned trial court noticed the fact that the medical examination report has already been proved and there was no further need to examine any other witness so far as the injuries of the injured was concerned. Learned trial court also noticed the fact that the incident of the case pertained to the year 1998 and there was clear attempt to prolong the case even further. This fact could not be disputed from the side of the petitioner that the incident was about 24 years old and sessions trial is pending for the last 17 years and a cross case was also there, pending along with it.

¶11

I do not find any gross error or infirmity in the matter for exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.12.2022

¶14

Asha

¶15

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.12.05 11:17:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukhtar Ahmed v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtar Ahmed v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

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

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajo and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Devi and 9 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others