Allowed

Ram Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2023A482/20659/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the applicant two consecutive days for cross-examination of three prosecution witnesses previously recorded without cross-examination, set aside impugned order, and fixed costs of Rs. 15,000 for the relief.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; applicant granted two consecutive days for cross-examination of three witnesses; applicant made to pay Rs. 15,000.

Ram Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20659 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Chandra Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Present application has been filed against the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.3, Sonbhadra in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2012 (State vs. Ram Chandra Gupta & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 911 of 2012, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station - Robertsganj, District - Sonbhadra.

¶7

Presently, application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of three prosecution witness namely P.W1, P.W.-2 and P.W-3 has been rejected.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is seen, the testimony of such witnesses were recorded in the presence of the applicant. However, at the relevant time, no cross-examination was conducted by the applicant despite opportunity granted. Later, an application came to be filed by the applicant on 18.12.2021 seeking to recall those three witnesses. Learned court below has rejected the said application as belated.

¶9

While it is true that the delay has been caused by the applicant and such delays are not to be encouraged, at the same time, the requirement of a fair trial may not be met unless adequate cross examination is allowed.

¶10

Considering the nature of offence alleged as also the delay being of less than a year and further considering the fact that the trial is still pending and has not reached the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is observed, the interest of justice may have been met better, if the applicant had been required to pay costs for the relief being claimed.

¶11

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage.

¶12

Accordingly, the impugned order 06.06.2022 is set aside, subject to payment of cost Rs. 15,000/- being Rs. 5,000/towards each witness. Such costs may be paid on the next date fixed in the trial. Learned court below may allow the applicant two consecutive days' opportunity to conduct and conclude cross-examination of those three witnesses.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, present application stands disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 6.1.2023 Prakhar

¶15

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

Ram Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra Gupta 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

Deep Shikha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rameshwar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhatrasal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahis Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Adarsh Yadav @ Mulayam Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another