Allowed

Jagdish Prasad Shukla Alias Yogiraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2022CRLR/1131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1131 of 2022 quashed the trial court's order refusing to recall witnesses. It held that alteration of charges mandates recall of examined witnesses to cross-examine regarding such changes under Section 217 Cr.P.C., directing the trial court to summon PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 for cross-examination by April 30, 2022.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.12.2021 quashed; trial court directed to summon PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 for cross-examination to be completed by April 30, 2022.

Jagdish Prasad Shukla Alias Yogiraj Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1131 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Jagdish Prasad Shukla Alias Yogiraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pankaj Sharma holding brief of Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The instant revision is being filed on behalf of the revisionist Jagdish Prasad Shukla @ Yogiraj assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad in Special Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Jagdish Shukla) under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, whereby the revisionist's prayer for summoning the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 for their crossexamination was declined by the learned trial court.

¶7

I have keenly perused the order impugned dated 16.12.2021, whereby it is evident that on 15.9.2021 the application for altering the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and the charges were accordingly amended or altered. Though, the concerned witnesses have already been examined at length, but the learned trial court has categorically mentioned that the defence has not disclosed the proposed question to be put forth before the alleged witnesses.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of the Court towards Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:-

¶9

217 - Recall of the witness when charges are altered .

¶10

" Whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed-

¶11

(a) to recall or re- summon, and examine with reference to

¶12

such alteration or addition, any witness who may have been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers that the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, desires to recall or reexamine such witness for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice;

¶13

(b) also to call any further witness whom the Court may think to be material".

¶14

Thus, it is clear that whenever the charges are altered or added, it is incumbent upon the learned trial court to recall/re-summon and examine with the reference of such alteration or addition any witnesses, who may have been examined earlier, and in such circumstances, when the charges are being altered, the burden has to be shifted upon the defence.

¶15

I have gone through the order impugned and the reasoning adopted seems to be faulty one and deserves to be quashed.

¶16

The trial court is hereby directed to summon the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 for their cross-examination, which would be completed by 30th of April, 2022 positively.

¶17

With these observations, the present criminal revision stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 29.3.2022

¶19

Sumaira

¶20

Digitally signed by SUMAIRA AQUIL Date: 2022.04.01 12:16:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagdish Prasad Shukla Alias Yogiraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Shukla Alias Yogiraj v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Nanda Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Piyush Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Jainab Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Other

Amar Kumar Dauneriya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others