Allowed

Chhedi Lal and Another v. State of U P and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2023A227/10259/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an Article 227 proceeding, quashed a Trial Court order that closed cross-examination due to lack of prosecution documents. The High Court held that without evidence of receipt of Section 207 Cr.P.C. copies, documents must be supplied for a fair trial. It directed the Trial Court to provide copies within 20 days, with petitioners bearing expenses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Trial Court directed to supply all necessary copies of prosecution documents within 20 days. Petitioners to bear expenses of copies.

Chhedi Lal and Another Vs State of U P and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10259 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Chhedi Lal And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Kant Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against order dated 29.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST in S.T. No. 1274 of 2021 in State Vs. Narendra Diwedi and Others arising out of Crime No. 42/2118 under Sections 147, 308, 336, 323, 504 I.P.C. in P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby learned Trial Court rejected the application of the accused-applicants filed under Section 207 Cr.P.C. for providing copy of charge-sheet along with other documents, which were filed with the chargesheet and closed the opportunity of cross-examination of PW-1, Kamla Kant Tiwari, as the accused persons had failed to cross-examine the witness on his appearance in the Court, on the application moved on behalf of accused Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed an application U/S 482 No. 23639 of 2022 for the same grievance, which was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.8.2022, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA. for the State. Learned A.G.A. has raised no objection to the above prayer of the counsel of the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in order dated 29.09.2022, it is stated by learned Trial Court below that the cross-examination of PW-1 Kamla Kant Tiwari was being conducted on behalf of accused Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi. Counsel on behalf of Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi and Chhedi Lal was present and adjournment was sought on behalf of remaining accused persons, on the ground that they had engaged new counsel and they were not prepared with the case on that date. It is further stated in the impugned order that when the counsel for petitioners Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi and Chhedi Lal was asked to cross-examine the witness, he expressed his inability to cross-examine the witness as the copy

¶8

envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C were not provided to accused persons and an application for the purpose was moved on 27.08.2022 by accused Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi under Section 207 Cr.P.C., was already dismissed and prayer made for accused Chhedi Lal for providing copies was rejected in the impugned order. It is also stated in impugned order that charge has been framed on 29.08.2021 and Examination-in-Chief of witness Kamla Kant Tiwari was recorded on 20.07.2022. However, on three successive dates, the cross-examination of witness was not done. Therefore, cross-examination of the witness is closed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A submitted that the fact is specifically mentioned in committal order that copy has been provided to accused persons and there is no reason to disbelief the observation of learned Magistrate in committal order. In fact, the cross-examination of P.W.1 was not done by accused persons on various dates on one and another reason for that count, the court below has closed the opportunity of petitioners to examine the witness and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

¶10

From the perusal of order-sheet of the Court of Magistrate as well as learned Trial Court, it is found that there is no endorsement of accused persons regarding receiving of copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the observation of learned Magistrate in committal order that copies has been provided to accused persons finds no support from order-sheet and an ambiguous position has arisen in the case. Therefore, for the purpose, learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the documents relied upon by prosecution including C.D. and D.V.D. and the petitioners seek its copy in view to apply them in cross-examination of the witness in effective manner.

¶11

The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. are incorporated to give effect the concept of fair trial which is all pervading component of a criminal appeal and accused persons cannot be deprived of their aspirations of fair trial. In absence of acknowledgement of the accused-petitioners regarding receipt of copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the same is liable to be provided to them by the learned Trial Court in the interest of fair trial to accused persons. Hence, present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is liable to be allowed.

¶12

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶13

The impugned order 29.09.2022, passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST in S.T. No. 1274 of 2021, is hereby set aside.

¶14

The Court concerned is directed to supply all the necessary copies including the digital copies, if any, of which reliance has been placed thereon by the prosecution, within 20 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioners will file the list of documents before the Court concerned of which copies desired by them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners shall bear the expenses of the copies, as per the rules of providing copy. It is also made clear that the contents of memory card and pen-drive will be furnished to the applicants, if any.

¶15

With the above observations, the present writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.1.2023 Nitika

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chhedi Lal and Another v. State of U P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhedi Lal and Another 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

Aneeta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manvendra Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Pooja Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Chandni (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rani Prajapati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others