Dismissed

Baboo and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023A482/30874/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the plea to recall a witness for recross examination. The court held that the trial court did not suffer from infirmities in rejecting the prayer given the excessive delay and lack of supporting grounds.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the order of the Special Judge and for recall of Witness P.W.-1 for recross examination is refused.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30874 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Baboo And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the applicants seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the order dated 5.1.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Moradabad in S.T.No. 100 of 2013, State Vs. Baboo and others, arising out of case crime no. 142 of 2011, under sections 323, 307, 436, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) SC/ST Act, police station Dilari District Moradabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that before the trial court he had prayed to recall P.W.-1 Sompal Singh at the cost of the accused persons for his re-cross examination regarding the facts/ questions which were left to be asked to him. The application was rejected by the Special Judge concerned with the finding that the statement of P.W.-1 was recorded on 22.10.2013, he was cross examined at length covering as many as 7 pages. It is further found by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act that the applicants have not made clear the questions to be asked in the recross examination of P.W.-1. Now this application is being filed after 8 years of the completion of the statement of P.W.-1. Thus, the Special Judge did not find sufficient ground to summon P.W.-1 for his recross examination.

¶8

The application of the applicant paper number 57-B which was rejected by the trial court is appended with the paper book, wherein only ground mentioned for summoning of P.W.-1 is that in the interest of justice, learned counsel for the applicants may be permitted to ask some more questions from P.W.-1 in his recross-examination which were left to be asked during the original cross examination of P.W.-1.

¶9

Before this court also, learned counsel for the applicants prayed the same that for only once he may be permitted to recross examine P.W.-1.

¶10

From the perusal of the application 57-B appended at page 19 of the paper book, it is found that no ground has been mentioned to summon P.W.-1 again for his recross examination in the whole application. Secondly, list of questions is also not annexed with the application which were proposed to be asked by the accused counsel to P.W.-1 at the time of his recross examination.

¶11

Admittedly, this application has been moved after more than 8 years of the conclusion of cross examination of P.W.-1. Neither any reason has been disclosed of this delay nor any ground has been mentioned for recalling P.W.-1 for recross examination, nor the list of questions proposed to be asked to P.W.-1 is annexed with the application, hence, in my opinion the order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity. The prayer for quashing the order dated dated 5.1.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Moradabad in S.T.No. 100 of 2013, State Vs. Baboo and others, arising out of case crime no. 142 of 2011, under sections 323, 307, 436, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) SC/ST Act, police station Dilari District Moradabad is refused.

¶12

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. of the applicant is hereby rejected.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.1.2023 Gss

¶14

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Baboo and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baboo 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

Amar Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Binni @ Vinny and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Satish Chandra Kesharwani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivchand and 7 Others Vs State of U.P and Another